& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-94-074b
November 1994
Air
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS FROM MAGNETIC
TAPE MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS
Background
Information for
Promulgated
Standards
-------
-------
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic
Tape Manufacturing Operations-Background
Information for Promulgated Standards
Emission Standards Division
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 1994
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is
not_intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Copies of this report are available through the Library Services
Offices (MD-35), u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, or from National Technical Information
Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Background Information
and Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
From Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations
Prepared by:
int
(Date)
feruce C. xJordan . . .
Director^, Emission Standards Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
1 The promulgated standards of performance would reduce
' hazardous air pollutant emissions from existing and new
magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are major sources
of hazardous air pollutant emissions. Under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, EPA is authorized to
require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions _ of
hazardous air pollutants that is achievable, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions,
and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements.
2 Copies of this document have been sent to the following
Federal Departments: Labor,_Health and Human Services
Defense, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and
Enerqy; the National Science Foundation; the Council on
Environmental Quality; members of the State.and_Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators; the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Offices; EPA Regional
Administrators; and other interested parties.
4. For additional information contact:
Ms. Gail Lacy
Coatings and Consumer Products Group (MD-13)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-5261
5. Copies of this document may be obtained from:
U. S. EPA Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
National Technical Information Service
5258 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
111
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 SUMMARY . . . ............ . ..... 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL ...... 1-1
1 . 2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION ... 1-2
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ........ ..... 2-1
2.1 SELECTION OF EMISSION POINTS ......... 2-1
2.2 SELECTION OF AFFECTED SOURCES ..... ... 2-4
2.3 APPLICABILITY OF THE STANDARD . . ...... 2-6
2.3.1 Low HAP Usage Exemption ........ 2-6
2.3.2 Definition of Potential to Emit .... 2-14
2.3.3 Regulation of Nonmagnetic Tape
Operations and Inclusion of Leader Tape
in the Source Category ........ 2-15
2.3.4 Regulation of Research and
Laboratory Operations ......... 2-17
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY . . 2-21
2.5 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD ....... 2-24
2 . 6 SELECTION OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (MACT) ......... ..... 2-26
2.6.1 Selection of the MACT Floor ...... 2-26
2.6.2 Selection of MACT ........... 2-29
2.7 SELECTION OF COMPLIANCE DATES ........ 2-32
2.8 SELECTION OF EMISSION LIMITS AND EQUIPMENT/
WORK PRACTICE SPECIFICATIONS ......... 2-37
2.8.1- Periods when the Coater is Down .... 2-37
2.8.2 Standard for Particulate Transfer ... 2-42
2.8.3 Requirements for Wastewater ...... 2-46
2.8.4 Miscellaneous . . ........... 2-49
2 . 9 SELECTION OF TEST METHODS AND
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ........... 2-51
2.9.1 Site -specific Operating Parameters . . 2-5,1
2.9.2 Test Methods ............. 2-53
2.9.3 Compliance and Monitoring ........ 2-54
2.9.4 Miscellaneous ........... . . 2-57
2.10 SELECTION OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS ................. 2-62
2.11 INTERACTION OF THE MAGNETIC TAPE NESHAP WITH
THE GENERAL PROVISIONS ............ 2-65
2 . 12 OVERLAP OF MAGNETIC TAPE NESHAP WITH OTHER
STANDARDS AND SOURCE CATEGORIES ....... 2-67
2.13 WORDING OF THE STANDARD ........... 2-70
2.14 MISCELLANEOUS ......... ....... 2-76
2.14.1 Alternative Compliance Plans ..... 2-76
2.14.2 Other Miscellaneous Issues ...... 2-84
2.15 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS . . ........ 2-88
2.15.1 Performance Specification 8 ...... 2-88
2.15.2 Performance Specification 9 ...... 2-97
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FROM MAGNETIC TAPE MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS 2-2
TABLE 2-2. LIST OF ALL PS 101 COMMENTERS 2-89
TABLE 2-3. LIST OF ALL PS 102 COMMEKTERS 2-89
VI
-------
.1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
In response to public comments and as a result of additional
evaluation by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
changes have been made to the proposed standards. Significant
changes are summarized below, and are explained fully in the
response to comments.
1. The rule does not apply to research and laboratory
facilities, or to a coating line in which magnetic tape
production is 1 percent or less of total production from that
line in terms of square footage coated in any 12-month period.
2. Leader tape production is not included as part of
magnetic tape manufacturing operations.
3. The rule does not apply when nonmagnetic tape products
are manufactured on affected sources.
4. The applicability and intent of the hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) usage limits have been clarified in § 63.703(b).
5. The final rule .[§ 63.703 (c) (4)3 allows owners or
operators of affected sources the option of controlling coating
operations more stringently in lieu of controlling HAP emissions
from solvent storage tanks.
6. The final rule includes an alternative standard to
control HAP from particulate transfer; it requires venting
particulate HAP to a baghouse or fabric filter that exhibits no
visible emissions when controlling particulate HAP transfer
operations.
7. The final rule requires the same fraction removed for
HAP compounds in wastewater from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations as is required in Table 9 of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart G
1-1
-------
of the national emission standards for organic hazardous air
pollutants from the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry. Any control technique may be used to meet the
treatment requirements. Also, monthly monitornig of the
wastewater concentration is allowed to demonstrate continuous
compliance.
8. The compliance time for existing affected sources has
been changed to 2 years after the effective date, unless a new
control device is needed to comply with § 63.703(c) or (g). If a
new control device is needed, an owner or operator of an existing
affected source must comply within 3 years of the effective date.
9. The final rule allows an owner or operator to use a
magnetic tape coating that contains no greater than
0.18 kilograms (kg) of HAP per liter (L) of coating solids for a
coating operation, in lieu of meeting the 95 percent overall HAP
control efficiency for that coating operation.
10. The final rule [§§ 63.703(i) and 63.704 (b) (11) (ii)]
contains procedures for establishing an alternate HAP
concentration limit to demonstrate compliance with the standards
when coating operations are not occurring.
11. The material balance averaging time was changed in the
final rule. The averaging time is now 7 days to determine
compliance with the standard.
12. The definition of affected source was changed from each
coating line, piece of mix equipment, storage tank, etc., to the
entire magnetic tape manufacturing operation.
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION
The environmental and energy impacts for this rule were not
affected by changes made to the rule between proposal and
promulgation.
Several commenters' provided comments on the estimate of
nationwide compliance costs for the standard. The EPA did revise
facility-specific cost impacts between proposal and promulgation
based on information received from one facility. The revised
industrywide annual costs to comply with the standards are
$822,000/year (yr). This cost includes the annual cost of
1-2
-------
control ($596,120), annual compliance costs including initial
performance tests and ongoing monitoring ($115,640/yr), and
annual reporting and recordkeeping costs ($110,240/yr). The
total industrywide capital investment is estimated to be
$5,206,920. The associated cost effectiveness is $390/megagram
(Mg) ($354/ton) HAP controlled. The costs for new sources are
unchanged from proposal.
The economic impacts of this rule were recalculated to
reflect a revision in the estimated industrywide annual costs
associated with this rule. Despite the cost revisions, the
conclusion of the economic impact analysis remains the same. The
economic impacts of this rule are not considered to be
significant. Under this rule, the average price of magnetic tape
products would only need to increase by 0.03 percent in order for
the magnetic tape industry to fully recover the new annualized
costs.
1-3
-------
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 17 letters commenting on the proposed standard
and the background information document (BID) for the proposed
standard were received. A list of commenters, their
affiliations, and the EPA docket number assigned to their
correspondence are given in Table 2-1 .
For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have
been categorized under the following topics:
1. Selection of Emission Points;
2. Selection of Definition of Affected Sources;
3. Applicability of the Standard;
4. Description of Emission Control Technology;
5. Impacts of the Proposed Standard;
6. Selection of Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT);
7. Selection of Compliance Dates;
8. Selection of Emission Limits or Equipment/Work Practice
Specifications; ' ,
9. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements;
10. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements;
11. Interaction of Magnetic Tape National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) with the General
Provisions;
12. Overlap of NESHAP with Other Standards and Source
Categories;
13. Wording of the Standard;
14. Miscellaneous; and
15. Performance Specifications.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM MAGNETIC
, TAPE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
Docket item
No.a Coitimenter and affiliation
IV-D-01 P. Gerbec, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
IV-D-02 B.R. Stephens, Tennessee Department of
Environment & Conservation, Division of Air
Pollution Control
IV-D-03 R.J. Connor, Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Association
IV-D-04 J.E. Tacconi and G.D. Garner, 3M Environmental
Engineering and Pollution Control
IV-D-05 J.W. Walton, Tennessee Department of
Environment & Conservation, Division of Air
Pollution and Control
IV-D-06 M. Farmer, Sony Magnetic Products, Inc. of
America
IV-D-7 R.H. Colby and D.F. Theiler, State Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators
IV-D-8 M.J. Wax, Institute of Clean Air Companies
IV-D-9 M. Feldstein, Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
IV-D-10 D. Driesen, Natural Resources Defense Council
IV-D-11 w. 0'Sullivan, State of New Jersey, Department
of Environmental Protection and Energy
IV-D-12 K.W. Holt, Department of Health & Human
Services
IV-D-13 L. Lizewski, Eastman Kodak Company
IV-D-14 C. Rainey and A. Johnson, Graham Magnetics
IV-D-15 R. Wood, State of Nebraska, Department of
Environmental Quality
IV-D-16 Dave Hild, Anacomp
IV-D-17 J. Udo, Fuji
IV-F-1 Transcript of Public Hearing on Proposed
NESHAP from Magnetic Operations. Speakers
were: Mr. David Carlson, Anacomp;
Ms. Janice Tacconi, 3M
a
The docket number for this project is A-91-31. Dockets are
on file at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC.
2-2
-------
2.1 SELECTION OF EMISSION POINTS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-6) stated that condensate from
the carbon adsorption system should not be considered a
wastewater stream. At the commenter's facility this stream is
routed to a stripper, which, the commenter contends, is a solvent
purification process, not wastewater treatment. The commenter
further stated that only the water stream exiting the solvent
purification stripping column should be considered wastewater,
and because volatilization of HAP from this stream is negligible,
this stream should not be considered an emission point.
Response: The commenter is correct in that the steam
stripper may be considered a purification process to remove
additional solvent from the water phase after a carbon adsorption
system is steam desorbed. However, this interpretation of the
process does not change the fact that the water phase from steam
desorption of the carbon adsorption system is a potential HAP
emission source. If a steam stripper or some other treatment is
not used to remove solvent from this water phase volatile HAP
solvents could be emitted to the air. In addition, discharge of
this untreated water to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
is a potential waterborne HAP emission source. Despite the
magnitude of potential HAP emissions from this wastewater,
controls must be identified for all emission sources. Based on
EPA's data, of the three existing major sources that use steam to
desorb their carbon beds, all three treat the resultant water
with a steam stripper. That part of the MACT floor addressing
this emission point was therefore selected as treatment with a
steam stripper or alternate device that achieves the same control
level.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-9) suggested that standards be
included for new and existing sources to limit HAP emissions from
cleaning mix equipment such as mixing vats, mills, and tote
tanks. The commenter stated that emissions resulting from
cleaning of mix equipment can be substantial if left
uncontrolled. The commenter also noted that coating operations,
including magnetic tape facilities in the Bay Area Air Quality
2-3
-------
Management District (BAAQMD), are subject to regulations that
require control of equipment cleanup operations. Four strategies
suggested by BAAQMD are not allowing the use of HAP in cleaning
operations, operating a closed cleaning system, capture and
control with an overall efficiency of at least 80 percent, and
establishing a solvent usage limit.
Response: The EPA conducted a survey of the magnetic tape
industry, including sources in the BAAQMD, to determine emissions
from cleaning and the level of control of these emissions being
achieved. One operation of concern was mix tank cleaning. The
survey results indicated that some sources were performing closed
top tank cleaning or "venting" tanks to control. However, closed
top tank cleaning emissions were no different than open top tank
cleaning emissions. Reports of efficiencies associated with
venting to control were not confirmed through capture or control
testing. Based on the information collected, that portion of the
MACT floor addressing this emission point was determined to be no
control for cleaning of mix tanks for new and existing sources.
The EPA evaluated controls more stringent than the floor, but
believed the cost effectiveness to be unreasonable, exceeding
$14,500/Mg HAP ($13,100/ton HAP).
2.2 SELECTION OF AFFECTED SOURCES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) agreed with the proposed
definition of "affected sources," stating that the definition is
enforceable and that defining emission points as sources is
appropriate for the magnetic tape industry. However, three
commenters (IV-F-1 Tacconi and IV-D-4, IV-D-14, IV-D-16) stated
that the definition of affected source is too narrow, and does
not allow facilities flexibility in controlling HAP emissions.
One commenter (IV-F-1 Tacconi) argued that the standard does not
consider prioritization of resources to control the highest
emitting sources and will force capital expenditures to bring
low-emitting sources into compliance, while preventing
cost-effective improvements on higher emitting sources that could
have larger emission reductions. This commenter noted that a
broader definition of "affected source" would provide flexibility
2-4
-------
by allowing emissions averaging to determine the most
cost-effective method of control; thus, emissions averaging
should be allowed as an alternative to meeting the requirements
for each source.
.This same commenter (IV-F-1 Tacconi, IV-D-4) claimed during
the public hearing and in written comments that the narrow
definition of "affected source" would conflict with the
requirements of the General Provisions. For example, the General
Provisions require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for
each affected source. The commenters argued that this would be a
significant burden, and that instead a single startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan should be required for the entire facility.
The second commenter (IV-D-14) recommended allowing the
definition of an affected source to include an enclosed area in
which one or several common and integrated processes occur. For
example, all equipment in a mix or coating room should be defined
as a single affected source, and fugitive emissions from solvent
recovery should be a single affected source. From the proposed
definition it is unclear whether each piece of mix equipment or
emissions from each piece of equipment is required to be vented
to a control device. The commenter suggested that EPA allow
capture and control of emissions from mix preparation equipment
or mix preparation rooms as well as emissions from wash sinks or
the mix preparation rooms in which the wash sinks are located.
The commenter maintained that it is economically easier to vent
the entire room than each piece of equipment, which would be
,
redundant and unnecessarily costly. .
The third commenter (IV-D-16) stated that the definition of
affected source is overly restrictive. The commenter recommended
that enclosed mix rooms be considered a single process unit and a
single affected source, stating that a broader definition of
affected source would provide flexibility and allow emissions
averaging. The commenter argued that under this approach
environmental protection will be equal to if not greater than
with the narrower definition and domestic producers would not be
further disadvantaged by the burden of regulatory costs.
2-5
-------
Response; The EPA has determined that a broader definition
of affected source is reasonable. The definition of affected
source has been changed to encompass the entire magnetic tape
manufacturing facility. The EPA agrees with the majority of
commenters that a broader definition of affected source would
increase flexibility not only for owners or operators of magnetic
tape manufacturing operations but for States implementing the
rule under Section 112 (1) of the Act as well. Comments
regarding prioritization of emission points and the opportunity
for emissions averaging are addressed in Section 2.14.
The EPA also agrees that changing the definition to the
entire facility will make the applicability of the General
Provisions less confusing, and will require clarification of
fewer sections of the General Provisions in Subpart EE. For
example, as noted by one commenter, under the original definition
of affected source, the General Provisions could have been
interpreted as requiring a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan
for each wash sink, storage tank, etc., although that was not the
intent.
Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-16) requested that several
emission sources for example, mix equipment and coating
operations, be defined as a single source so that each piece of
equipment would not have to be ducted individually to a control
device. Both the proposed and final rule do allow use of a total
enclosure (around multiple emission sources) vented to a control
device as an alternative method of compliance; a narrow source
definition would not preclude this practice. Fo'r example, to
comply with either the proposed or final rule, an owner or
operator could control emissions from mix preparation equipment
by venting the mix room(s) to a control device. This has been
made clearer in the final rule.
2.3 APPLICABILITY OF THE STANDARD
2.3.1 Low HAP Usage Exemption
Comment; Seven commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-4, IV-D-7, IV-D-9,
IV-D-13, IV-D-14, IV-D-16) suggested that EPA should clarify the
2-6
-------
intent of the HAP usage cutoff and modify the cutoff
requirements.
Three commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-14, IV-D-16) suggested
clarifying that § 63.701(a)(2) of the proposed rule, which
outlines the HAP usage cutoff, applies to magnetic tape
manufacturing operations located at a facility that is a major
source of HAP emissions and that area sources are exempt from the
standards. Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-16) stated that the
rule could be read to apply to all sources that utilize more than
10 tons per year (tons/yr) of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any
combination of HAP, and that EPA must clarify that a
manufacturing operation will not be subject to the standard
unless it emits or has the potential to emit, considering
controls, more than 10 or 25 tons/yr of HAP. The commenters
further stated that applying a MACT standard based on an
operation's usage of HAP and not on its emissions or potential
emissions, considering controls, exceeds the legal requirements
of the Clean Air Act (the Act)
One commenter (IV-D-13) recommended that EPA clarify the HAP
threshold exemption wording so that it is supported by the
explanation in the preamble. The commenter stated that in the
regulation the threshold appears to apply to the magnetic tape
manufacturing operation, not the entire facility, but it is
unclear in the preamble whether the Agency intended for this
threshold to be applied to the facility or the magnetic tape
manufacturing operation.
Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) found the use of the word
"utilize" in the HAP usage cutoff confusing in the context of
certain sources. The commenters questioned whether it makes
sense to say that a wastewater treatment system "utilizes" a HAP.
Both commenters recommended defining the term "utilize" for each
affected source to make the use of the term more meaningful. One
commenter (IV-D-9) suggested redefining the term "utilize" as the
net usage; that is, the inventory at the beginning of a 12-month
period, plus any additional amounts purchased during the year,
minus any amounts shipped offsite during the year, minus the
2-7
-------
amount in inventory at the end of the 12-month period. This
would mean that the HAP usage cutoffs would be based on net
usage, excluding HAP that is reused or resold. The commenter
believes this will encourage pollution prevention.
Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) suggested that
§ 63,. 701 (a) (2) of the proposed rule should state that the owner
or operator shall use the annual HAP utilization report required
by §§ 63.703(g)(1) and (2) of the proposed rule to determine
whether they are over or under the threshold for exemption. Both
commenters also believed that a discrete 12-month reporting
period is too long to wait to determine if a source has gone over
the threshold. They suggested a 12-month rolling total, which
would reduce the amount of time required to determine if a source
has exceeded the threshold.
Two commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-13) stated that potential to
emit is a better basis for the threshold HAP cutoff than
utilization. One of these commenters (IV-D-4) suggested that
§ 63.701(a)(3) of the proposed rule be edited to include the
facilities' potential to emit in determining the applicability of
the HAP usage cutoff. The commenter suggested changing
§ 63.703(g) of the proposed rule which requires an annual report
of HAP utilization to include the consideration of potential to
emit by alternatively requiring owners or operators to report the
quantity of HAP emitted to the atmosphere during a 12-month
period. The other commenter suggested that EPA change the
wording from "quantity of HAP utilized" to "quantity of HAP
emitted" throughout the regulation. They argued' that utilization
ignores actual emissions that may emanate from a magnetic tape
operation. The example used in the preamble might exceed a
potential to emit threshold in a few days per year. The
assumption is made that the example facility has no control
equipment, no Federally enforceable limitations on the hours of
operation or use of control equipment because, otherwise,
utilization and potential to emit should be equivalent. The
commenter also maintained that utilization penalizes facilities
that have installed control devices (and now have potential to
2-8
-------
emit less than 10 tons/yr of HAP), yet exempts facilities that
emit less than 25 tons/yr of HAP. If potential to emit is used,
magnetic tape coating operations can choose to become exempt from
the regulation by installing control devices or accepting
Federally enforceable permit conditions to limit their emissions
from magnetic tape operations to below the stated threshold. The
commenter suggested adding language to consider potential to emit
in determining applicability of the cutoff. The commenter
alternatively suggested that EPA adopt some de minimis level of
HAP emissions, based on actual HAP emissions, to exempt small
scale operations.
Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) suggested that
§ 63.70l(a)(3) of the proposed rule, which states that facilities
that exceed the threshold for at least 1 year must comply with
the proposed standards, should be reworded to make it clear that
the owner or operator must exceed the thresholds for 1 year prior
to these provisions becoming effective. The section as proposed
could mean that §§ 63.701(a)(3)(i) and (ii) must be complied with
for 1 year.
Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-9) suggested allowing sources
subject to the control requirements to use the HAP usage
exemption in the future. One commenter (IV-D-1) suggested that
EPA consider exempting sources that go below the HAP usage
threshold for several years in a row from at least monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements. The commenter reasoned that such an
exemption is reasonable because area sources were not determined
to be a health threat, and because these sources'are likely to
continue using any control devices that are currently employed.
Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that the HAP usage
cutoff appears to exempt each affected source that falls below
the HAP usage criteria of 10 tons/yr of a single HAP or
25 tons/yr of total HAP. Thus, each storage tank, wash sink,
etc. that utilizes HAP in quantities below the threshold could be
exempted. This section as written could exempt a magnetic tape
operation with actual usage well over the 10 tons/yr of a single
HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP threshold. One
2-9
-------
commenter (IV-D-7) suggested changing the phrase "each affected
source" to read "each magnetic tape operation."
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the
proposed HAP usage cutoff requires clarification in the final
rule. The first clarification is that only magnetic tape
manufacturing operations at major sources of HAP emissions are
required to comply with Subpart EE. However, the owner or
operator of any stationary source with magnetic tape
manufacturing may choose to be subject to the HAP usage limits in
Subpart EE to obtain a Federally enforceable limit on the
potential to emit HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations. Essentially, the HAP usage limits are a surrogate
for the potential to emit HAP. A reason the owner or operator
may want to use this mechanism in Subpart EE is if the stationary
source would be a major source, unless it had the potential to
emit limit established by this subpart. The owner or operator
could use the potential to emit established for magnetic tape
manufacturing operations (determined by the HAP usage limit), in
conjunction with the potential to emit from the other HAP
emission points at the stationary source, to be an area source.
Note that the determination of whether a stationary source is
major or area is dependent on the potential emissions from all
points within the stationary source, or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common
control.
Subpart EE does not preclude the determination of potential
to emit, considering controls, by other mechanisms. For example,
without controls, the potential to emit HAP could be low because
the solvents used in coating are not HAP. An operation that has
emission controls may have its potential to emit established by a
Federally enforceable State operating permit. The definition of
"federally enforceable" in the General Provisions, Subpart A of
Part 63, includes other examples of limits that are federally
enforceable. The EPA did not include specific provisions in
Subpart EE to create enforceable limits for controls because, for
this source category, very detailed and complex provisions would
2-10
-------
be required. The HAP usage limits, by comparison, are
straightforward to determine, record, and can be easily confirmed
by regulatory authorities. Because of the availability of the
other mechanisms and the few plants in this source category, the
EPA decided to include in this subpart only the HAP usage limits.
If a stationary source becomes an area source by subjecting
its magnetic tape manufacturing operations to the HAP usage
limits in Subpart EE, then the control requirements of Subpart EE
would not apply. Furthermore, for purposes of Section 112 of the
CAA, it would not be a regulated area source that would be
required to have an operating permit under 40 CFR Part 70. In
other words, being subject to the HAP usage limits in the rule
does not in and of itself make the facility subject to Part 70.
However, there may be other reasons that the stationary source is
required to comply with Part 70. For example, it may be a major
source of emissions of volatile organic compounds.
The HAP usage limits at magnetic tape manufacturing
operations have been changed from their proposed values of
10 tons/yr of an individual HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP to
take into account the potential emissions from other emission
points at the stationary source. In the final rule, the HAP
usage limits for the magnetic tape manufacturing operation are to
be the values that, when summed with the values of the potential
to emit each HAP from emission points other than magnetic tape
manufacturing operations at the stationary source, are less than
10 tons/yr of an individual HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP.
To illustrate how the HAP usage limits woul'd be determined,
three example situations have been developed. The first example
is a stationary source at which the only HAP emission points are
in the magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Since no other
points go into the calculation in this case, the limits would be
less than 10 tons/yr of an individual HAP and less than
25 tons/yr of a combination of HAP.
The second example is a stationary source at which the only
HAP emission points are the magnetic tape operation and a boiler.
Assume that the boiler, without controls, has the potential to
2-11
-------
emit 1 ton/yr of HAP, and that the HAP from the boiler are
different from those emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing.
The limits on HAP usage in the magnetic tape manufacturing
operation would be to not exceed 10 tons/yr for each individual
HAP and 24 tons/yr for the combination of HAP (i.e., the
25 tons/yr major source threshold minus the 1 ton/yr potential to
emit of the boiler).
The third example is a stationary source in which the HAP
emission points, except those associated with magnetic tape, have
controls with Federally enforceable emission limits, such as a
new source performance standard (NSPS) under section 111 of the
Act. Assume that these federally enforceable limits have the
effect of limiting the potential HAP emissions from these
emission points to 4 tons/yr of a solvent that is also used in
magnetic tape manufacturing (e.g., toluene). The limit on the
magnetic tape manufacturing HAP usage for toluene would be to not
exceed 6 tons/yr, for other individual HAP to not exceed
10 tons/yr, and for the combination of HAP to not exceed
21 tons/yr.
Two commenters remarked that a 12-month period is too long
for determining if the threshold had been exceeded; the
commenters suggested a 12-month rolling total. The EPA agrees;
the final rule requires that the HAP usage be calculated monthly.
In the final rule, the EPA has removed the proposed
requirement that after a source has been subject to the control
requirements of the MACT standard, the owner or operator can not
take advantage of the HAP usage limit anymore. The points made
by the commenters who suggested this change are being considered
as part of a general policy on the timing aspects of limitations
on potential to emit, which is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. Therefore, this rulemaking does not include any
specific requirements of this nature.
One commenter suggested that the HAP usage cutoff be defined
in terms of net usage to encourage onsite solvent recovery and
reuse. The EPA agrees that net usage encourages pollution
prevention by subtracting out the amount that is recycled at the
2-12
-------
facility. Therefore, the definition of "utilize" has been
changed to incorporate this concept into the final rule by
allowing the owner or operator to determine utilization as the
HAP inventory for the magnetic tape manufacturing operation at
the beginning of a 12-month period plus the amount purchased
during the 12-month period minus the amount in inventory at the
end of the 12-month period. However, the proposed definition is
also included as a choice, because owners or operators of a plant
that uses HAP for other purposes may not keep their inventory of
HAP bought for the magnetic tape manufacturing operations
separate. Therefore, they may prefer a record based on the
amount of HAP actually put into the process.
The proposed rule stated that when a source exceeded the HAP
usage limit, the owner or operator would be required to comply
with the control requirements of the rule by 1 year after the
exceedance; this time had been selected to be consistent with the
period given for existing sources to comply after the effective
date. In the final rule, the EPA has clarified that the source
shall be required to comply with the control requirements for
major sources only if the owner or operator chooses to no longer
be subject to the HAP usage limits and, in doing so, becomes a
major source. In such a case, the owner or operator would be
required to notify the Administrator or delegated State of this .
intent. The owner or operator would then have the same amount of
time to comply with the control requirements as would an existing
source, according to § 63.6(c)(5) of the General Provisions. The
HAP usage limits would continue to apply until the control
requirements were met.
An exceedance of a HAP usage limit would be a violation of
the HAP usage provisions of Subpart EE. If the source also has
exceeded the major source definition thresholds by exceeding the
HAP usage limit, and the source does not have an operating permit
for major sources under 40 CFR Part 70, the source potentially
could be found in violation of the requirements of Part 70 as
well.
2-13
-------
Another clarifying change in the rule is that the owner or
operator is not required to include 12 months of HAP usage data
in the initial notification report required by the General
Provisions; this requirement would have required sources to keep
records before the effective date of the rule. Instead, the
owner or operator is required to submit the values of the limits
on the amount of HAP utilized, as determined in § 63.703(b)(2),
along with supporting calculations, with the initial
notification.
As in the proposed rule, the owner or operator would be
required to submit an annual report on HAP usage, with the first
one covering the 12-month period before the compliance, date of
the rule (which, in the final rule, would be 2 years after the
effective date, instead of the proposed 1 year). Because the
final HAP usage limits are calculated monthly on a rolling
12-month basis, the final rule would require a report within
30 days of any exceedance of a HAP usage limit. It would be
unreasonable to allow the owner or operator to wait until the
annual report to report an exceedance.
2.3.2 Definition of Potential to Emit ;
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) recommended that EPA
consider State and/or locally mandated controls in the
determination of potential to emit. The commenter urges EPA to
provide a simple mechanism for such requirements to be made
Federally enforceable without requiring a new permit review. The
commenter argued that re-permitting sources that hold and comply
with State and local air permits is a waste of resources and
provides no additional environmental benefits.
Response; A determination of a source's potential to emit,
as defined in 40 CFR Part 63.2 of Subpart A, can account for air
pollution control equipment as well as other limitations, if they
are Federally enforceable. In the definition of Federally
enforceable that is contained in Subpart A, examples of Federally
enforceable conditions and limitations are .listed. These
include, among other things, limitations and conditions that are
part of an approved State implementation plans (SIP) and
2-14
-------
limitations and conditions that are part of an operating permit
issued pursuant to a program approved by EPA in a SIP as meeting
the EPA's minimum criteria for Federal enforceability. Thus,
some State or locally mandated controls (i.e., those that are
federally enforceable) can be considered in the determination of
potential to emit. It is, however, beyond the scope of this
rulemaking to determine which State programs meet the
requirements for federal enforceability and which do not. The
only mechanism for limiting potential to emit that is specific to
this subpart involves the HAP usage limits of § 63.703(b) and
(h), as discussed in the previous response.
2.3.3 p^nation o* wnnmacmetip Tape Operations and Inclusion of
Leader Tape in t--he Sour<-g Category
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-13) suggested
deleting § 63.70KO of the proposed rule, which requires
compliance during the manufacture of nonmagnetic tape for any
affected source that also is used in magnetic tape manufacture.
The first commenter (IV-D-4) cited the following reasons:
1. Additional controls may be necessary;
2 Solvent recovery systems of magnetic and nonmagnetic
tape processes are not necessarily compatible since different HAP
may be used during production of magnetic and nonmagnetic
products, resulting in the need for additional solvent recovery .
equipment and the associated costs to recover solvent from
nonmagnetic tape processes;
3. Nonmagnetic tape would be expected to be covered by the
future MACT standards for the "paper and other webs" source
category, due to be promulgated in the year 2000, and there may
be conflicting requirements;
4. The nonmagnetic tape process was not considered in
developing the MACT floor or the environmental and cost impacts
associated with the standard; and
5. The standard probably exceeds the MACT floor for
nonmagnetic tape manufacturing.
The second commenter (IV-D-13), like the first commenter,
stated that inclusion of nonmagnetic products in this rule
2-15
-------
overlaps the paper and other webs source category, which they
claim was not the intent of Congress. The commenter repeated the
assertion that EPA has not identified the MACT floor for this
source category for HAP used in nonmagnetic product
manufacturing. The commenter stated that a facility would be
favored in the regulation if it manufactures nonmagnetic products
and has more than one line because it would not be subject to the
regulation.
Commenter IV-D-04 also suggested deleting the phrase "and
leader tape" from the definition of magnetic tape manufacturing
operation for the same reasons described above for nonmagnetic
tape manufacturing.
Response: For nonmagnetic tape manufacture, the limited
information the EPA had at the time of proposal led the EPA to
believe that magnetic tape coating and nonmagnetic tape coating
done on the same line 'would use solvents that could be controlled
using a common device. Upon review of the comments, the EPA
recognizes the potential use of different solvents that are
incompatible with respect to a solvent recovery device. Given
this situation, and the fact that manufacturing of nonmagnetic
tape products would be covered by the source category for paper
and other web coatings, the EPA decided not to require affected
sources to be subject to Subpart EE during the coating of
nonmagnetic tape products.
Upon consideration of the comments on the inclusion of
leader tape, the EPA agrees that it did not adequately factor
leader tape into the analysis of the floor for the magnetic tape
manufacturing source category. The EPA examined only a situation
where leader tape and magnetic tape were manufactured on the same
line. The comments brought to our attention that leader tape
manufacture is not necessarily as similar to magnetic tape
manufacture as originally anticipated. For example, some leader
tape manufacture uses solvents that are incompatible with those
used for magnetic tape. Leader tape also would be covered by the
paper and other webs source category. Consequently, the EPA has
2-16
-------
decided not to include leader tape as part of the magnetic tape
manufacturing source category.
234 T?P.giilatinn of Research and Laborai-or-y Operations
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-13, IV-D-14,
IV-D-16) stated that research and laboratory activities should be
exempt from the standard, regardless of whether they are
collocated at a production facility, and suggested removing the
phrase "that are not collocated with production coating lines"
from § 63.701(b) of the proposed rule.
The first commenter (IV-D-4) cited Section 112(c)(7) of the
Act, which states that EPA is directed to "...establish a
separate category covering research or laboratory facilities as
necessary to assure equitable treatment of such facilities."
This commenter and two others (IV-D-14, IV-D-16) believe that
traditional controls cannot reasonably be applied to research
facilities because of the wide variety and small amounts of
materials that are used, the batch nature of research operations,
and the different methods of research operations. The commenters
also believe that it would be impractical for EPA to attempt to
construct an exemption for each type of affected source within a
research operation, because it would be too complicated and
time-consuming for EPA. Commenters also noted that requiring
collocated research and laboratory facilities to use production .
control equipment dramatically reduces the amount of research
that can be conducted and impacts competition.
The second commenter (IV-D-13) agreed, adding that the
technical and economic feasibility of controlling research and
laboratory lines is dependent on a variety of factors, including
the length of" duct work required to route emissions to a control
device, safety and cross-contamination concerns regarding mixing
emissions, the flow rate and concentration of HAP from the
research and laboratory facility relative to the capacity of the
existing control device, and the schedule of operation at the
research and laboratory facility. Another commenter (IV-D-16)
:' remarked that the capital costs of regulating collocated research
2-17
-------
activities were not considered in the industry-wide costs of
compliance.
Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-4) suggested that a definition
of "collocated" be added to § 63.701(b) of the proposed rule.
The section states that the subpart does not apply to research or
laboratory facilities that are not collocated with production
coating lines. These commenters noted that "collocated" could be
interpreted to mean "in the same room" or as "part of the same
line," and recommended the rewording the section to state "at the
same stationary source" or "on contiguous property and under the
same control" or other more specific language.
Three commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-14, IV-D-16) responded to
EPA's request for information on the definition of de minimis
manufacture of products for commercial sale from a research and
development coating line.
One commenter (IV-D-4) recommended that the standard adopt
the definition of research or laboratory facility as proposed by
EPA. The commenter advised that EPA not try to further define de
minimis, for example, either as a percentage of materials used or
hours of operation, because de minimis may vary by the 'nature of
product being produced (which would affect the amount of coated
material required for each production unit) or the concurrent
level of research activities (which would affect any limitation
based on percentage or hours of operation).
Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-16) suggested defining the de
minimis sale of products produced at research and laboratory
facilities according to the percent of time the 'facility'is used
for commercial activities. The commenters both suggested
defining de minimis manufacture of products for commercial sale
in commerce as a magnetic tape manufacturing process that is not
engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in
commerce for more than 50 percent of its total available
operating time. One commenter (IV-D-14) included a maximum
aggregate HAP emission level in the definition of de minimis such
that no more than 5 tons per year of any one HAP or 10 tons
2-18
-------
per year of any combination of HAP would be emitted as result of
research and laboratory purposes.
Response: The EPA had proposed regulation of research and
laboratory facilities collocated with production lines, meaning
those research and laboratory facilities that were located at the
same major source site as the production lines. The EPA believed
that the primary control device used to control HAP emissions
from coating operations may also be able to be used to control
HAP emissions from the research facilities. The EPA agrees that
in order to regulate research facilities at magnetic tape
manufacturing plants, a separate source category would need to be
developed as directed by Section 112(c)(7) of the.Act to assure
equitable treatment of such facilities. Furthermore, based on
information received at proposal, the EPA also agrees that many
of the types of emission points at research facilities (such as
laboratory bench-scale equipment) may not be able to be
controlled using the same pieces of control equipment as are used
on manufacturing lines. In addition, research lines are more apt
to operate in batch mode and with many different solvents than
are used in production. This latter problem is of specific
concern when.a solvent recovery device is used, because the
solvent recovery device (and associated distillation operations)
are designed for recovery of specific solvents. Therefore, in
the final rule, research and laboratory facilities collocated
with production lines are not regulated.
In the final rule, the definition of research or laboratory
facility remains unchanged from the proposed definition, which is
identical to the definition in Section 112(c)(7) of the Act. The
EPA disagrees with the two commenters who suggested that the
phrase in the definition of research or laboratory facility "not
engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in
commerce, except in a de minimis manner" be interpreted as not
engaged in commercial manufacture for more than 50 percent of its
operating time. The EPA does not believe that this is a
reasonable interpretation of "de minimis manner." Otherwise, the
2-19
-------
Agency did not receive sufficient information that "de minimis
manner" could be defined for this source category. ;
In its deliberation about the definition of research or
laboratory facility for this source category, the Agency
evaluated the types of activities it considers to fit the
definition in the Act. Research and laboratory activities
include those activities that are employed to develop a new
coating, substrate, or end product, ar well as activities devoted
to optimizing the manufacture of a new material. For example, a
magnetic tape facility may have bench-scale research operations
directed to developing new coatings. Once a promising' coating is
developed, the research activity may move to a laboratory-scale
or pilot plant coating line to determine if it can be properly
applied, dried, etc. Some marketing may take place at this stage
to determine if a market would exist for the product. For
example, is there a demand for this type of product? Can it meet
the customer's specifications? If the facility wishes to further
pursue the coating, it may be moved to a line that is the same as
a production line to determine how the coating could be
manufactured on a full-scale basis. The EPA believes that all of
these activities are research because their intention is to
develop new products or processes.
Once a facility determines that the manufacture of this
product is viable, however, the EPA believes that additional
activities are likely to be beyond the research phase. For
example, the adjustment and optimization of a process that is
already operating on a production line should not be considered
research. Likewise, if a product is being manufactured and
introduced in a retail environment, even on a limited basis, the
product is likely to be fully developed. It could be argued that
research is continuing even beyond this point in that the
facility is testing to determine the correct market segment,
price, advertising, etc. The EPA believes, however, that this
type of "research" is beyond what was intended by the Act. The
company is obviously planning eventual full-scale production; the
development of the new product and process is over. \
2-20
-------
2 4 DESCRIPTION OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Consent: Two commenters (IV-D-3, IV-D-8) were generally
supportive of the proposed rule and noted that control devices
are available to control emissions to the level required by the
proposed rule. The first con-neater (IV-D-3) agreed with the EPA
that it is appropriate to have an emission format that is _
technology neutral. He further pointed out the use of catalytic
oxidation as a possible control method for HAP. The commenter
claims that a properly designed catalytic oxidizer will Wily
achieve 98 to 99 percent destruction efficiency which will
achieve the emission limits in the standard when coupled with-a
high efficiency vapor collection system. The second commenter
(IV-D-8) noted that control equipment is currently available for
new and retrofit operations that can meet the 95 percent control
requirements of the proposed rule for solvent storage tanks, mix
preparation equipment, coating operations, waste handling
devices, condenser vents, and flushing of fixed lines. The
commenter further stated that overall control efficiencies of
98 percent and greater can be achieved in some cases.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support of the proposed
regulation and agrees that there are many different control
techniques that could meet the requirements of Subpart EE. For
this reason, Subpart EE does not mandate a specific type of
control requirement, but instead specifies that a percent
efficiency be achieved. Control techniques other than those
presented in the final rule can be used to comply with the
standards as long as the technique is demonstrated to meet the
emission limitation in accordance with the test methods and
procedures of § 63.7 of Subpart A and § 63.705 of Subpart EE. If
the control technique used to comply with Subpart EE is not
included in § 63.704 (compliance and monitoring requirements),
the owner or operator of the affected source will have to propose
compliance monitoring for approval by the Administrator in
accordance with § 63.704(f).
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-16 and IV-F-1
Carlson) requested that EPA include specific provisions for the
2-21
-------
use of biofiltration as a control technology in the proposed
rule. In public hearing testimony, commenter IV-F-l (Carlson)
recommended that EPA consider biofiltration as a control
technology. The commenter stated that biofiltration may
potentially represent a superior abatement technology, yielding
higher efficiency and reliability, and lower costs. This
technology has been used successfully in Europe and Japan to
treat contaminated air and is used extensively to treat natural
gases in soil, decomposing solid and liquid organics in
landfills, and treating organics in wastewater. ;
The same commenter in written comments (IV-D-16) stated that
the proposed rule should allow facilities the opportunity to use
innovative technologies. Currently, monitoring requirements and
the requirement that a source request approval from' EPA to use an
innovative technology make it extremely difficult for facilities
to use innovative technology under the proposed rule. ^The
commenter suggested that EPA allow flexible monitoring
requirements for biofiltration including eddy diffusion, open
cell Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and flux chamber
measurement techniques to determine average effluent !
concentrations in performance testing. in addition, the
commenter suggested that EPA allow volumetric effluent flow rate
to be calculated from influent air flow rate, and allow the use
of biofiltration with compliance demonstrated through monitoring
of influent air flow rate, moisture levels, and influent
temperature, which is consistent with provisions made for
monitoring temperatures to demonstrate compliance when using
catalytic incinerators and condensers.
The other commenter (IV-D-4) requested that EPA add language
to the standard to explicitly allow a facility to submit a
request to the Administrator that would propose an alternate
standard for a facility that has installed innovative control
technologies, such as biofiltration, that may not be capable of
meeting all the compliance requirements of the promulgated
standard. The commenter stated that this strategy is necessary
to encourage introduction of new technologies that will have
2-22
-------
improved environmental and energy benefits compared to
traditional control strategies that are described in the proposed
standard.
Response: Neither the EPA's information at proposal nor the
comments received indicate any biofiltration units in place to
control HAP or volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Furthermore, the
commenters did not provide specific information and data on
alternative testing or monitoring techniques for the EPA to
evaluate their ability to demonstrate the compliance status of
the source if biofiltration were used. Because biofiltration is
still a new technology, extensive research and information
gathering would be necessary for the EPA to develop appropriate
testing and monitoring; this could not be accomplished without
delaying promulgation of the final rule. Therefore, the EPA has
not included specific testing and monitoring provisions for
biofiltration units in the final rule.
Section 63.704 (f) of the final rule allows owners or
operators of affected sources to submit compliance monitoring
provisions for alternate control technologies to the
Administrator for approval. The EPA believes that an owner or
operator of an affected source that is exploring the use of
biofiltration or another innovative method as a control technique
will be more informed and better able to propose appropriate
testing and monitoring. As discussed in Section 2.7 of this
document, the compliance timeframe for existing sources that must
.-
install a control device to comply with § 63.703(c) or (g) of
Subpart EE is 3 years from the effective date of the standard to
achieve compliance. The EPA believes that this extended
timeframe will also allow owners or operators the time required
to propose alternative testing and monitoring requirements.
In accordance with §§ 63.7 (c) (2) and (f) of Subpart A, an
owner or operator must submit a site-specific performance test
plan at least 60 days prior to the date by which the performance
test must be conducted. In accordance with § 63.7(c) (3), the
Administrator will approve or disapprove the plan (including
2-23
-------
alternate test methods) within 30 days of receipt of the plan; if
approval or disapproval is not received within this time and an
alternate test method had been proposed, the performance test
completion deadline will be changed to within 60 days after
receipt of approval. Likewise, § 63.8 (f) of Subpart A outlines
similar procedures and timeframes for proposing and receiving
approval for alternative monitoring methods.
2.5 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-14, IV-D-16 and
IV-F-1 Carlson) stated that they believe EPA has significantly
underestimated the cost of compliance with the standard for the
entire industry. One commenter (IV-D-4) believes that the actual
cost to industry will be 10 to 15 times EPA's estimate of the
cost of compliance (the EPA's estimate at proposal was
approximately $2,200,000). The commenter suggested that EPA
review all comments related to cost impacts from all facilities
and, if necessary, review the cost effectiveness of the proposed
rules and the cost impact on the industry.
The second commenter (IV-D-14) estimated that for three
facilities, costs would be $7.2 million. The commenter stated
that EPA must reanalyze both the capital cost and annual
operating costs, and maintained that high capital costs and
operating costs raise the issue of achievability in the statutory
definition of MACT.
The third commenter (IV-D-16 and IV-F-1 Carlson) believes
that EPA mischaracterized its facility's size and control
s
technology requirements in estimating the cost of compliance.
According to the commenter, the cost of compliance represents two
to three times the profit budget for the magnetic tape industry
in fiscal year 1994. The commenter believes the actual cost to
comply could be three to five times the EPA estimate. The
commenter (IV-D-16) stated that the costs to install a carbon bed
adsorption system at their facility were underestimated by almost
$1.5 million, chiefly because the size of production lines were
mischaracterized. The commenter provided specific information on
2-24
-------
which to base their request to have the cost of compliance
increased for this facility.
Response: The EPA agrees with the third commenter (IV-D-16,
IV-F-1 Carlson) that compliance costs should be adjusted for the
facility that was mischaracterizedas small during development of
the compliance costs. This commenter provided specific
information which supported their assertion that his facility was
mischaracterized. The EPA has revised the compliance cost
estimates for this facility by recategorizing the facility as
large, and assigning costs associated with a large line. (See
Chapter 8 of the proposal BID "Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing--Background Information for Proposed
Standards," EPA-453/R-93-059 [item III-B-1 of Docket A-91-31] for
a description of costs for large lines.) Based on this revision,
industrywide annual costs to meet the standards are approximately
$822,000/yr, with a corresponding cost effectiveness of $390/Mg
of HAP controlled. This reflects an increase of $421,880/yr in
annual costs for commenter IV-D-16 to reflect the change in size
designation.
The remaining commenters however, did not provide specific
information on what was incorrect'about the EPA's proposed
compliance costs. Industry compliance costs are based on
information that was solicited from industry during the
development of the proposed regulation. All specific information
received from industry was considered carefully. Commenters cite
EPA's cost estimates of $2.26 million, which is for control
equipment only. The EPA also recognizes that facilities will
incur costs associated with testing, monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping and these costs were considered separately.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-6) stated that Section VI.E of
the preamble underestimates the amount of spent carbon generated
and overestimates the useful life of the carbon. This
commenter's facility operates two carbon adsorption systems with
a total of 80,000 pounds of carbon, and claims even larger
systems exist in the industry. This carbon is changed every
18 months to 2 years. Ketone solvents such as those used in this
2-25
-------
industry react with oxygen and heat, producing compounds that
foul the carbon and reduce its useful life. Additionally, the
life of the carbon is expected to decrease slightly due to the
increased loading that will result from implementing the proposed
standards.
Response: The proposal BID notes that average carbon life
for individual fixed-bed carbon adsorbers ranges from 6 months to
5 years and from 3 to 5 years for flu.-i.dized-bed carbon! adsorbers.
To develop cost impacts of the standard, the average useful life
of carbon in a carbon adsorption system was estimated to be
5 years. The EPA recognizes that it is likely that some
facilities will have systems with longer or shorter carbon
lifetimes.
During development of the proposed standards, information
was solicited from industry on the impact of controlling all
emission points considered in the proposed standards with
existing control devices. From the information received, it was
assumed that control of additional emission points with an
existing carbon adsorption system would not decrease the life of
the carbon bed and not result in additional incremental' solid
waste. Therefore, the amount of solid waste (spent carbon)
resulting from use of a carbon adsorption system was calculated
for the addition of new coating lines only. (it was assumed that
uncontrolled facilities would install a carbon adsorption system
to comply with the standards.) This impact was estimated to be
less than 0.1 Mg/yr (0.01 ton/yr). The amounts of carbon solid
waste presented in the proposal BID are incremental impacts and
do not represent the total amount of carbon that a facility would
generate, only the additional carbon that would be generated as a
result of the standard. ;
2.6 SELECTION OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (MACT)
2.6.1 Selection of the MACT Plnnr- :
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-10) responded to
EPA's request for comments on interpretation of the MACT floor.
The first commenter (IV-D-4) stated that the MACT floor
should be interpreted to be the 88th percentile of the best
2-26,
-------
performing sources, believing that this was Congress' intent.
The commenter noted that the MACT floor interpretation will
affect the level of control required for HAP particulate transfer
operations by requiring enclosed transfer if the MACT floor is
interpreted as the 94th percentile. However, if the MACT floor
is interpreted as the 88th percentile, the MACT floor for
particulate handling would be manual transfer while venting to a
99 percent efficient control device.
The second commenter (IV-D-10) argued that the MACT floor
should be interpreted as the average of the emission limitation
achieved by each source in the top 12 percent of a source
category. In other words, the MACT floor should be calculated by
adding the emission limitation achieved by each source in the top
12 percent and dividing by the number of facilities in the top
12 percent. The MACT floor would not necessarily be .the level of
control of the source at the 94th percentile but could be
stronger or weaker, depending on the levels of control above or
below the 94th percentile.
This commenter also claimed that the alternative
interpretation of emissions control by the source at the
88th percentile does' not represent the average emission
limitation achieved by the top 12 percent of sources. The
commenter argued that to interpret the MACT floor as the level of
control at the 88th percentile goes against Congress' intent. If
Congress had intended the floor to be the emission limitation
achieved by the source at the 88th percentile, it would have
stated so clearly. Nothing in the legislative history suggests
that Congress intended general language meant to apply to the
entire toxic program to refer to the average emission limitation
achieved by a single source. Some sources emit a single HAP;
these sources do not achieve multiple emission limitations to be
averaged. Also, in cases where sources emit a complex stream,
EPA would have to determine not just the general efficiency of
various technology but precisely how much reduction is achieved
for each regulated pollutant. Such an approach would impose an
enormous data gathering burden on EPA.
2-27
-------
The commenter also argued that the purpose of the MACT floor
was to mandate the maximum achievable emission reductions rather
than have cost considerations lower the emissions level, citing
Senator Dingell's introduction of the amendment to establish the
MACT floor. ;
Response: On June 6, 1994, the EPA promulgated a final rule
(57 FR 29196) that presents the Agency's interpretation of
Section 112(d)(A) of the Act regarding the basis for the MACT
floor. The Agency's interpretation of this section of the Act
agrees with the interpretation presented above by the second
commenter. Under this interpretation, which is referred to as
the "Higher Floor Interpretation," the Agency considers the
emission limitations achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources and arrives at the MACT floor by averaging
those emission limitations. Furthermore, the Agency interprets
"average" to mean a measure of central tendency such as the
arithmetic mean or median. For example, if a source category
included fewer than 30 existing sources, the Agency would
consider the five best performing sources. If those sources
achieve emission reductions of 99, 98, 95, 94, and 93 percent,
the arithmetic mean of the five values would be 95.8 percent.
Because this value does not correspond to an actual control
efficiency being achieved, the Agency could set the MACT floor at.
95 percent, which is the median of the five values. [
The Agency has concluded that if Congress had intended EPA
to set the MACT floor as the lowest reduction achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of existing sources, as suggested by
the first commenter, Section 112(d)(A) would have been worded
differently. For example, Congress could have expressed such a
meaning by requiring the floor to be set at "the emission
limitation achieved by all sources within the best performing
12 percent" or at "the emission limitation achieved by the least
efficient member of the best performing 12 percent." Therefore,
the Agency believes that such an interpretation, which is
referred to as the "Lower Floor Interpretation," requires that
words or concepts, which are not stated explicitly in the
2-28
-------
statute, be added or inferred. Furthermore, the Higher Floor
interpretation is supported by Section 112 (d) (3) (B) , which
requires the MACT floor for existing sources in categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources to be no less stringent
than the "average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources." To infer a Lower Floor Interpretation
from this provision, Congress would have used language such as
-the emission limitation achieved by the ^h bpst performing
source . "
262 Selection of MACT
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) stated that MACT standards
should be at least as stringent as the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) standards developed in the 1980' s. The
commenter stated that the state of New Jersey requires various
control techniques for processes included in the manufacture of
magnetic tape (e.g., solvent storage tanks, wash sinks for
removable parts cleaning, etc.)
Response: The RACT for this source category was established
in 1977 and, in general, requires a VOC content of 347 grams per
liter (g/D of coating applied, excluding water. For typical
coatings used by this industry this is equivalent to
approximately 83 percent control . The proposed standard requires
a higher control efficiency of 95 percent and regulates more
emission points within the source category.
Comment : One commenter (IV-D-13) recommended that EPA-
reevaluate MACT for solvent storage tanks, mix preparation
equipment and other pieces of equipment to consider factors such
as HAP concentration, flow rate, and distance from a control
device, because these factors influence costs to control. The
commenter suggested instituting a Total Resource Effectiveness
(TRE) index as was done for process vents in the hazardous
organic national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) from the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry (hereafter referred to as the HON) .
Response: The MACT floor is based on the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which
2-29
-------
the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emission
information) in a category that has fewer than 30 sources. A
MACT standard cannot be less stringent than the established
floor. For this source category there were five sources
controlling all mix equipment and storage tanks; therefore, that
portion of the MACT floor addressing mix equipment and storage
tanks is based on an overall HAP control efficiency of
95 percent. Information obtained from the facilities was
evaluated to determine if subcategorization based on size,
distance to control, etc. was reasonable. Data for
subcategorization either were not available or indicated that
subcategorization was not justified (e.g., even the smallest
tanks were controlled.)
Comment: Two commehters (IV-D-13, IV-D-14) noted that the
proposed standard does not provide de minimis levels for low
emitting equipment. One commenter (IV-D-13) also stated that it
is not clear from the preamble or BID that the portion:of the
MACT floor for all tanks and mix prep equipment is 95 percent
overall removal efficiency.
The other commenter (IV-D-14) stated that requiring
95 percent controls on storage tank emissions is not cost
effective. The commenter explained that with 50 percent control
from conservation vents, emissions are approximately 500 pounds
HAP per year from storage tanks at their facility. The
regulation will require an expenditure of $15,000 to $20,000 to
control a small amount of HAP an additional 45 percent. The
commenter estimated the incremental cost effectiveness to achieve
95 percent control at $60,000 to $80,000 per ton. The commenter
asserted that Congress did not intend MACT to impose exorbitant
costs on industry to achieve marginal reductions in HAP
emissions. I
Response; As previously stated, that portion of the MACT
floor for mix equipment and storage tanks is based on the fact
that there are five major sources in this source category that
control all of their mix equipment and all of their storage tanks
by at least 95 percent. The Act does not allow a MACT standard
2-30
-------
with a level of control less stringent than the floor. A review
of data indicates no reason to subcategorize certain mix or
storage tanks. See Section 2.14.1 of this document for a
discussion of an alternate compliance plan that allows an owner
or operator to control coating operations at a higher efficiency
in lieu of controlling HAP emissions from storage tanks.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-13) suggested that EPA delete
from the definition of solvent recovery the phrase "to recover
the HAP, and to purify the HAP for reuse in the process." The
commenter claimed that it is not apparent that the MACT floor was
properly established for recovery/purification equipment. Also,
the commenter stated that inclusion of purification equipment in
the proposed rule penalizes facilities that purify solvents and
rewards facilities that destroy waste solvent or send it off site
for purification. The commenter also noted that facilities
having closed loop recycling are exempted under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR Part 261.4(a)(8).
The commenter asked if distillation units regulated by the
proposed rule are also covered under the RCRA air regulations for
distillation equipment in 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart AA. The
commenter also questioned if EPA considered purification
operations that, in addition to magnetic tape solvents, handle a
variety of solvents that are not used in the magnetic tape
operation, stating that the MACT floor does not reflect
multipurpose purification operations.
Response: Regulation of solvent recovery equipment is based
on the MACT floor. Information available to EPA indicates that
three facilities have wastewater discharges as defined in the
rule, and use steam stripping to remove HAP from the wastewater.
Therefore, the portion of the MACT floor associated with
wastewater treatment operations is based on the use of a steam
stripper or equivalent. Likewise, there are five sources that
perform on site solvent recovery and that vent HAP emissions from
condenser vents in solvent recovery to the add-on air pollution
control device. Given this MACT floor level of control, the rule
must at least require this level.
2-31
-------
The RCRA air regulations cited (40 CFR 264) regulates
process vents on distillation units. Sources in the magnetic
tape source category may be covered by this regulation. In any
event, Subpart EE regulates emissions from condenser vents in
solvent recovery processes in the same manner as 40 CFR Part 264.
Subpart AA to Part 264 requires 95 percent control of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) or an exit concentration of 20 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) total organic compound for incinerators
from closed-vent systems. Therefore,'if a source is subject to
both rules and chooses to control VOC rather than HAP pnly, as is
likely, there should be no conflict in control strategies.
2.7 SELECTION OF COMPLIANCE DATES
Comment: Five commenters [IV-D-4 and IV-F-1 Tacconi,
IV-D-13, IV-D-14, IV-D-15, IV-D-16 and IV-F-1 Carlson): stated
that the compliance time of 1 year from the date of promulgation
is too short. One commenter (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1 Tacconi)
recommended changing the compliance date to a minimum of 2 years
after the effective date of the standard, or 3 years it a new
control device is required. The commenter maintained that the
standard may require extensive retrofitting and/or installation
of new control equipment, and that a minimum of 2 years would be
required to adequately plan, design, fund, purchase, and install
the required new equipment. If a new emission.control, device is .
required, the full 3 years allowed under the Clean Air: Act would
be needed for compliance. In addition the commenter claimed that
allowing only 1 year to comply would cause conflicts if a
facility requests a 1-year extension under the General
Provisions. The extension must be submitted 12 months before the
compliance date, which would mean the facility would have to
request an extension on the date of promulgation of the standard.
However, the facility would not know before the promulgation date
if they would need to request an extension, since the final rule
would not have been promulgated. Finally, there is no assurance
that the State or Administrator would approve the extension.
The second commenter (IV-D-16 and IV-F-1 Carlson) suggested
a minimum of 27 months to comply with the standard, based on a
2-32
-------
7-step work plan. The commenter proposed the following
sequential work plan: (1) evaluate control technologies
(2 months); (2) design specifications for the control technology
(4 months); (3) obtain construction permit from the State
(6 months); (4) obtain operating permit from State (6 months);
(5) obtain construction bids and contract negotiations
(3 months); (6) procure control equipment (6 months); and
(7) construct and test control system (3 months). The commenter
stated that its estimate of compliance time is supported by the
experience of a plant in Wales (3.5 years) and a competitor in
California (3 years). Although the commenter suggested that the
compliance period be no fewer than 27 months, they recommended a
3-year compliance period.
The commenter also asked that EPA consider the role of
States in permitting the construction of control devices. For
example, the State of Nebraska is not expected to have a
formalized process for obtaining construction permits until
November 1994. Also, the State outline for obtaining a
construction-permit suggests that 10 months may be required. If
the application is not complete, objections could arise from
State review. Furthermore, legal, policy, or discretionary
issues could arise from public notice of the application. The
commenter also pointed out that startup difficulties are
possible, since this is a new program at the State. In general,
permitting under Title V is controversial and it is reasonable to
expect delays before programs are fully implemented.
The commenter also stated that a 1-year compliance deadline
is unrealistic. The commenter estimated that 10 months may be
required to obtain state and local permits; 4 to 9 months are
required to procure necessary equipment; construction time is
dependent on weather conditions, and 3 to 6 months may be
required to achieve maximum effectiveness of the control device.
The commenter believes the deadline extension provision does not
eliminate the need for a longer compliance deadline.
The third commenter (IV-D-13) recommended allowing existing
sources 3 years after the effective date to comply with the rule.
2-33
-------
The commenter stated that existing controls are for RACT or new
source performance standards (NSPS), which may be considerably
less than the proposed MACT, depending on emission point. For
example, to increase control from 85 percent to 95 percent could
require a new control device or expansion of capacity of an
existing control device. Also, the proposed rule covers a wider
range of emission points, which may require a new control, device
or expansion of the existing control device. According to the
commenter, the time frame required to complete installation of
new control equipment is typically 2 to 3 years. Alternatively,
the commenter suggested the regulation distinguish between
sources currently (March 11, 1994 and earlier) subject 'to the
NSPS and sources not subject to the NSPS, and allow sources not
subject to the NSPS 3 years to comply. '
The fourth commenter (IV-D-14) stated that 1 year \±s not
long enough for compliance. The commenter explained that in
Texas construction permits typically take from 6 to 9 months to
be issued by the State, and construction cannot begin until the
permit is issued. Equipment delivery takes 4 to 6 months,
installation and startup takes 4 to 6 months, and design,
permitting, acquisition, and installation can take, a totzal of
18 to 27 months. The commenter suggests a compliance date of at
least 30 months after the effective date of the standard.
The fifth commenter (IV-D-15) remarked that the compliance
deadline is too short to allow adequate time for a source to
apply for an extension of the deadline. The extension request
must be filed on the date the regulation is promulgated. The
commenter suggested that the MACT standard override the|General
Provision requirement of 1-year review of an extension request.
Response; After reviewing the comments received, the Agency
recognizes that the l-year compliance period for affected sources
that was specified in the proposed rule may be inadequate for
some facilities. For facilities that must install a new control
device, l year may not allow sufficient time for evaluating
available control technologies; obtaining construction and
operating permits; and procuring, installing, and testing
2-34
-------
controls. In addition, because this rule covers a wider range of
emission points than the NSPS, some facilities that are subject
to the NSPS also may need additional time to retrofit the
emission controls necessary to comply with the MACT standard.
Therefore, the Agency has increased the compliance period to
3 years for affected sources that will need to install a control
device to comply with the control requirements of
Sections 63.703(c) or (g) of Subpart EE.
All other magnetic tape manufacturing operation sources
would have to comply within 2 years of the effective date of the
standard. The EPA believes that the timeframe for compliance can
be shorter for owners or operators that do not have to install a
new control device. The greatest difference may be that such
sources would not have to obtain preconstruction and construction
permits. Nor would such sources have to evaluate appropriate
control technologies, select vendors, and install the control
device. The EPA does realize, however, that even if a new
control device is not needed, an owner or operator will have to
evaluate the feasibility of manifolding additional emission
points into the existing control device. Also, time will be
needed to purchase and install sufficient ductwork and process
controls, and the performance of the existing control device may
have to be optimized.
The final rule specifies that, to trigger a 3-year
compliance timeframe, the new control device must be installed to
comply with § 63.703(c) or (g). The types of control devices
most likely needed to meet these requirements are carbon
adsorbers, condensers, incinerators, and steam strippers. To
comply with the other standards, large-scale equipment is not
needed and compliance can be accomplished within the 2-year
timeframe. For example, to comply with 63.703(d), owners or
operators that must install an enclosed transfer device. Because
the ductwork and process controls required to install such a
device will not be extensive, the EPA does not believe owners or
operators will need 3 years to complete the installation. As an
alternative to the enclosed transfer device, owners or operators
2-35
-------
may use a baghouse or fabric filter. However, this option is
most likely to be pursued by owners or operators that already
have this equipment. The standards for wash sinks and flushing
of fixed lines can likewise be achieved within 2 years. A
freeboard ratio, at most, would require a new sink. A closed
system for flushing fixed lines could be retrofitted on site.
The Agency believes that these revised compliance timeframes
will allow facilities sufficient time to bring affected sources
into compliance with the rule while ensuring implementation of
emission control in a timely fashion. In addition, the increase
in the compliance time period will allow additional time for
State agencies to implement permitting programs required under
Title V of the Act.
To accommodate sources that cannot comply with the standard
by the compliance date, 40 CFR Part 63.6 (i) of the General
Provisions allows owners or operators of affected sources to
request a 1-year compliance extension. The request for extension
of the compliance date must be submitted 12 months in advance of
the compliance date. Increasing the compliance period |to 2 or
3 years allows owners or operators of affected sources at least
1 year to evaluate the need and apply for such an extension.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-ll) recommended that EPA
clarify that sources constructed between the proposal and
promulgation of this rule are entitled to a compliance extension
if they meet the requirements of the proposed rule. ;
Response: Section 63.6(b)(3) of Subpart A clarifies the
compliance time for sources constructed between proposal and
promulgation. According to this section, owners or operators of
such sources shall comply with the standard no later than 3 years
after the effective date only if the promulgated standard is more
stringent than the proposed standard and the owner or operator
complies with the standard as proposed during the 3 year period.
If the final standard is not more stringent than the proposed
standard, the owner or operator of a new source must comply with
the final standard immediately upon startup. The compliance
extension described in § 63.6 (i) allows extensions of the
2-36
-------
compliance date only for existing sources. Section 63.2 of the
General Provisions defines "new source" as any source for which
the construction or reconstruction commences after the proposal
date Therefore, if the construction of the source in question
is begun after the proposal date, that source is considered to be
a new source. In effect, the fact that the source has 3 years to
comply if the promulgated rule is more stringent than the
proposed rule is an extension of the compliance date.
2.8 SELECTION OF EMISSION LIMITS AND EQUIPMENT/WORK PRACTICE
SPECIFICATIONS
281 Periods when the r.nater is Down
' comment: Five commenters (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1 (Tacconi),
IV-D-9, IV-D-13, IV-D-14, IV-D-16) responded to EPA's request for
comments on options for demonstrating compliance with the
proposed rule during periods of low inlet concentrations to a
carbon adsorber.
One commenter (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1 [Tacconi]) claimed that an
overall 95 percent control efficiency is not feasible when the
coating process is not operating. The commenter suggested
including an equipment operating standard that requires only that
the control device be in normal operation when mix preparation or
other operations are emitting HAP. The commenter also
recommended requiring the owner or operator to maintain records
to document periods when the coater is down and HAP are being
emitted to demonstrate that the control device is operated
properly. ' The commenter argued that while 95 percent control
efficiency can be achieved during coating operations, when the
HAP concentration of inlet stream to the control device is high,
this level cannot be maintained when the coater is not operating
because the HAP concentrations from mix preparation and other
operations are too low for control systems to achieve 95 percent
control.
The commenter did not believe that any of the three
alternative compliance options presented in the proposal preamble
to address control during noncoating periods are acceptable.
Allowing a longer averaging time (Option 1), the commenter
2-37
-------
claimed, would not be possible unless an extremely long averaging
time was chosen. Citing data submitted to EPA, the cbmmenter
stated that one of their facilities only achieves 90 percent
control efficiency when using a 7-day averaging period.
Compliance with a 95 percent control requirement would likely not
be achieved by existing facilities unless the averaging time is
30 days or longer. Requiring a lower control efficiency during
noncoating operations (Option 2) would also be problematic
because the minimum average control efficiency of an existing
facility would be difficult to determine; the duration!of
noncoating operation time cannot be predicted and may vary
significantly among facilities. Specifying a control device
outlet concentration (Option 3) would be feasible; to ensure that
all existing facilities could comply, however, the limit would
have to be set so high that it would essentially be meaningless
from an enforcement standpoint. '
According to the commenter, any emission limits would need
to be facility-specific and would not demonstrate 95 percent
control efficiency. The commenter suggested that EPA establish
an alternative acceptable minimum emission concentration that a
facility could adopt for compliance without having to determine
its own facility-specific control limit. This would minimize
test burdens on facilities which may not be able to economically
shut down all coaters for a 72-hour or longer compliance test to
simulate emissions during extended periods of noncoater!
operation. Instead, a continuous emission monitor (CEM) could be
used to measure HAP emissions during these periods. ! '
The second commenter (IV-D-13) recommended that EPA allow
the owner/operator to establish either the control efficiency or
outlet concentration as a site specific operating parameter
during the initial performance test required in § 63.704 of the
proposed rule for periods when the coater is down. However the
commenter does not have specific data to propose a specific'value
for an alternative control efficiency or outlet concentration for
when the coating operation is down. The commenter also Requested
that the owner/operator be exempt from control requirements
2-38
-------
during those periods of time (weekends, holidays, etc.) when the
facility is not operating, the control device is shut down and no
emissions are being routed to it.
The third commenter (IV-D-9) suggested that EPA allow an
alternate emission limit for control equipment other than
incinerators. Specifically, when emissions from the control
device are below the detection limit, the source should be
considered to be in compliance. The commenter reasoned that when
a coating line is not operating, the inlet concentration to the
control device could be so small that to comply with the overall
control efficiency, the outlet concentration would have to be
below the detection level. In this case the overall control
efficiency cannot be demonstrated.
The fourth and fifth commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-16)
recommended an averaging period of 30 days for carbon adsorbers
to account for periods of low inlet concentrations. One
commenter (IV-D-14) explained that a predetermined outlet
concentration is unworkable due to highly variable inlet
concentrations. Also, a 3-day averaging period is not feasible
since some facilities shut down on weekends and holidays, and for
maintenance. Based on their experience the commenter suggested a
30-day averaging period to average out the low inlet
concentration times during regular or seasonal shutdowns. The
other commenter (IV-D-16) alternatively recommended specifying a
maximum emission rate of 5 percent of the maximum design inlet
VOC load to the control device, or recommended simply requiring
operation of the control device whenever other affected emission
points are emitting HAP during noncoating periods.
Response: At proposal, the EPA requested comments on the
feasibility of a 95 percent control efficiency for solvent
recovery devices when the inlet concentration and flow to the
control device are low; e.g., when coating operations are down.
The control efficiency during periods of low inlet concentration
is a particular concern for owners or operators using carbon
adsorption units to comply with the proposed rule because one way
to demonstrate continuous compliance is to continuously measuring
2-39
-------
the percent efficiency. Commenters agreed that this was a
problem, but were not in agreement on the best way to address the
problem. Several commenters did suggest extending the averaging
period to 30 days to account for periods of low inlet conditions.
The EPA does not believe that this is an acceptable alternative;
no data were submitted to support that this is the minimum
averaging time that is technically feasible. '
Commenters also did not support the option of an owner or
operator establishing an alternate outlet concentration
requirement for periods of low inlet conditions. Primarily, the
reasons cited were that it would be costly to simulate; all
possible modes of operation during an initial performance test,
and outlet conditions are source-specific and depend greatly on
highly variable inlet conditions. The EPA recognizes that it
could be costly simulate all possible modes of operation during
one performance test. Given the site-specific nature of outlet
conditions, however, for EPA to set such an outlet concentration
to apply to the entire industry during periods of low inlet
condition would be unfounded as EPA currently has no data to
support such a limit. The EPA does believe, however, that
compliance with a site-specific alternate outlet concentration is
the best way to establish compliance during those periods when
the inlet HAP concentration to the control device is low, and
that the value of the alternative outlet concentration;should be
set by the source. >
There are two alternatives in the final rule for
establishing the site-specific outlet concentration for periods
of low inlet concentration. Section 63.704(b)(11)(ii) allows the
owner or operator to conduct a performance test during which the
coating operations are not occurring, and the control device is
operated according to good control practices in the same manner
as it was operated to achieve the emission limits for coating
operations. As stated above, this may be very burdensome for
some sources. Therefore, to minimize the burden on affected
facilities, the final rule also allows sources to establish this
number using CEM data collected under such conditions as noted
2-40 :
-------
above, since carbon adsorbers will already have CEM's. The final
rule [§ 63.704(b)(11)(ii)] allows owners or operators 6 months
after the compliance date to collect these data and submit a
proposed limit to the Administrator or permitting authority, as
appropriate. In accordance with the final rule, the alternate
concentration limit will be approved (or disapproved) within
60 days of the receipt of the information necessary to grant the
approval (or disapproval). The EPA recommends that, in general,
the limit be set as the highest outlet concentration measured
during periods of low inlet conditions.
To support the alternate concentration limit, the owner or
operator must also fulfill the reporting requirements in
§ 63.707(k). In general, these require the owner or operator to
submit the CEM data collected since the compliance date, records
of when coating operations were down, the rationale for the
alternate proposed limit, and a statement signed by a responsible
official of the company that states that, when the CEM data were
collected, the control device was operated in accordance with
good air pollution control practices, and in the same manner as
it was operated to achieve compliance with the emission
limitation for coating operations.
The alternate concentration limit in the final rule is
available to all owners or operators except for those with
incinerators, but is expected to be used primarily by those
owners or operators using a carbon adsorption unit. Owners or
operators using an incinerator can comply with the alternate
concentration limit of 20 ppmv as allowed in the' proposed and
final rules.
The final rule also clarifies when the emission limitations
apply. The emission limitations apply at all times during which
the facility is operating, including times of startup and
shutdown". The emission limitations do not apply when the
facility is not operating; i.e., when mixing, coating operations,
waste handling, and solvent recovery involving HAP solvent are
not taking place.
2-41
-------
2.8.2 Standard for Particulate Transfer ;
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-13, IV-D-14,
IV-D-16) suggested alternatives to or clarification of;the
enclosed transfer requirements for particulates. One commenter
(IV-D-13) recommended that EPA limit requirements of particulate
transfer operations to those particulates that may become
airborne. The commenter suggested that a broad definition of
particulate could require an enclosed transfer system in cases
where there is virtually no opportunity for the particulate to
become airborne. One example of this situation would be when
magnetic particles are mixed into a liquid that forms a slurry
and then transported in a closed container to the mix preparation
equipment. ';
Another commenter (IV-D-4) recommended that EPA elaborate on
the definition of "enclosed conveyor system" to include different
types of enclosed transfer operations. The commenter stated that
it uses several different types of equipment to transfer
particulate material. For example, some particulate material is
purchased in "supersack" containers, which have attached feed
tubes that are attached and sealed directly to mix preparation
equipment. Also, the commenter uses enclosed mechanical systems
for particulate HAP transfer, such as augers and conveyors, which
it believes should also meet the criteria for the "enclosed
transfer method." '.
This commenter also recommended that EPA allow the use of
manual charging of particulate HAP into kettles with the use of a
99 percent efficient dust collector as an equivalent method to
enclosed transfer. The commenter estimates a 99.975 percent
control efficiency for its own facilities. The commenter also
claims that additional costs to convert to enclosed transfer
would be excessive compared to the resulting emission reductions.
The commenter noted that enclosed transfer systems all have some
purge capability usually associated with a fabric filter that
would vent to the atmosphere. Therefore, the ultimate difference
between enclosed transfer and open transfer with control would be
minimal. Lastly, the commenter believed EPA incorrectly
2-42
-------
established the MACT floor for participates and that it should
have set the floor equivalent to the 88th percentile, which would
be manual charging of mix kettles with the use of a 99 percent
efficient control device.
The third commenter (IV-D-14) recommended that the proposed
rule be amended to require capture and control of at least 95 of
particulate emissions or the use of an enclosed transfer method.
The commenter stated that performance standards are almost always
superior to design standards, which are used only as a last
resort when performance standards are not possible. Their
facility vents the particulate HAP unloading area to a baghouse
with greater than 99 percent control of particulate emission
greater than 1 micron in diameter, which they believe is at least
as efficient as the enclosed transfer method.
This commenter also recommended that EPA create an exemption
for 200 pounds or less of particulate HAP per mix batch used in
research and development processes. The commenter explained that
research and development processes use many small batches of
coating slurry with a particulate content of as little as 6 grams
to 200 pounds; it is unreasonable to expect all research and
development applications to use dust control equipment standards
for such small quantities.
The fourth commenter (IV-D-16) believes that the regulation
of particulate HAP emissions is unnecessary. The commenter
recommended eliminating the requirement for totally enclosed
particulate HAP transfer operations for existing facilities
because it is overly restrictive, costly, and unnecessary. The
commenter noted that current powder handling practices achieve
best available control technology (BACT) for particulate HAP.
Because particulate HAP are the most expensive component,
handling procedures have been developed to minimize fugitive
emissions. The commenter further stated that the proposed
standard is not practicable -in some situations, maintenance costs
will increase, and research and development efforts will be
impeded as a result of this requirement.
2-43
-------
Response: In the final rule, the requirements for
particulate transfer operations have been revised and' clarified.
First, the term "particulate HAP transfer" has been defined as
the introduction of a particulate HAP into other dry ingredients
or a liquid solution. It is during this charging, or transfer,
that particulates become airborne. One commenter suggests that
transferring particulates into a liquid slurry prior to
introducing them into mix vessels should not be regulated.
However, the manner in which the particulates were introduced
into the liquid to form a slurry is of concern, and would be
covered by this subpart.
The final rule now contains two standards from which to
choose. The first is the standard proposed: the use of enclosed
transfer device. The definition of an enclosed transfer device
was left as a broad definition so as not to exclude equipment
that could achieve enclosed transfer. The supersack containers
described by one commenter would appear to meet the definition,
as would the mechanical systems. The final rule references such
equipment. !
The final rule also allows owners or operators to;control
emissions of particulate HAP by venting the transfer operation to
a baghouse, dust collector, or fabric filter that exhibits no
visible emissions while controlling particulate HAP transfer
operations. The minimum ventilation rate needed to capture HAP
particulates for delivery to the control device would have to be
supported by the owner or operator by submitting engineering
calculations [§ 63.707(h)]. Guidelines to determine the
appropriate ventilation rate may be found in the Industrial
Ventilation Manual of Recommended Practice, published by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). The final rule contains test methods and procedures for
determining that there are no visible emissions from the baghouse
or dust collector [§ 63.705(g)], as well as monitoring provisions
for demonstrating continuous compliance [§ 63.704(e)]. :
As stated in Section 2.4 of this document, research and
laboratory operations, including mix equipment used for research
2-44
-------
purposes, are not covered by this subpart. The EPA disagrees,
however, with the assertion that particulate HAP should not be
regulated by this subpart. A review of the control of
particulate HAP in the industry indicates that there are five
sources controlling emissions of particulate HAP. Section 112(d)
requires that EPA set an emission limitation that is no less
stringent than the level of control being performed by the best
performing 5 sources for source categories (such as this one)
with less than 30 sources. Because a "floor" level of control
exists with regards to .particulate HAP emissions, the EPA cannot
establish an emission limitation that is less stringent than that
portion of the floor addressing particulate transfer; to not
regulate emissions of particulate HAP would be less stringent.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4) suggested defining
"particulates that contain HAP," as worded in § 63.703 of the
proposed rule, as particulate material with a minimum HAP
concentration of 2 percent by weight. This definition would
include typical HAP materials such as cobalt-doped iron oxide
(3 to 5 percent cobalt by weight) and chromium oxides (62 to
68 percent chromium), but would avoid excessive control
requirements on processes using particulate materials that
contain HAP only as a trace constituent or contaminant.
Response: The EPA does not have data to support a
definition of affected particulates as those that have a HAP
content greater than or equal to 2 percent by weight. The EPA
believes that the final rule is clear in the types of
particulates that are to be regulated. Specifically, only those
particulates that contain HAP and are involved in a transfer
operation are regulated. Further, the final rule clarifies that
it is only those particulate HAP associated with magnetic tape
operations that are covered by this subpart. The EPA is not
aware of other particulates that contain HAP (even in trace
amounts) that are in use, and does not support a limit that would
exempt particulate containing any HAP that is associated with
magnetic tape operation.
2-45
-------
2.8.3 Requirements for Wastewater ;
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4) maintained that EPA does
not have sufficient data to set the concentration limit for
wastewater streams from the steam stripper at 50 partsper
million by weight (ppmw) HAP. The commenter noted that the data
to support the limit was not obtained by test Method 305 of
Appendix A to 40 CFR 63. '
One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested that EPA amend the
wastewater treatment requirements to specify a performance
standard of 99 percent efficiency or an exit concentration of
50 ppmw of total HAP. The commenter argued that facilities that
do not use steam stripping should not have to seek EPA;approval
to use reliable technologies with demonstrated efficiencies in
treating wastewater. The commenter noted that heated '
distillation columns reliably remove organics to less than
50 ppm; also, carbon adsorption is a reliable and common method
to remove trace amounts of VOC from wastewater.
One commenter (IV-D-13) endorses the option of alternative
techniques to steam stripping to meet wastewater requirements but
objects to the basis for establishing the required removal
efficiency/outlet concentration. The commenter recommended that
EPA either (1) limit the rule only to methyl ethyl ketone (MEK),
methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and toluene and make an adjustment
for the removal efficiency for MEK described in the HON; or
(2) conduct another MACT floor evaluation to include aljl HAP and
repropose this portion of the rule. The commenter was concerned
about the method used to establish the MACT floor for wkstewater
treatment systems. The commenter noted that in the HON the
removal efficiency required for MEK is only 95 percent. Also,
the removal efficiency and outlet concentration is highly
dependent on the type of HAP compound present in the wastewater.
For example, the HON lists a removal efficiency of 31 percent for
methanol. If wastewater is combined with other process!
wastewater prior to stripping, other HAP may be introduced which
could lower the actual removal efficiency achieved by the
stripper.
2-46
-------
Response: The wastewater provisions in the final rule
differ slightly from those at proposal. The EPA agrees that the
rule should not limit treatment methods to steam stripping for
removing HAP from wastewater. Therefore, the final standards are
expressed in terms of performance limits, not technology. An
owner or operator must achieve a certain fraction removed for a
given HAP, or must achieve a total VOHAP outlet concentration
less than 50 ppmw. The volatile organic hazardous air pollutant,
or VOHAP, concentration is defined in the final rule as the
concentration of an individually-speciated HAP in a wastewater
discharge that is measured by Method 305 of Appendix A to 40 CFR
Part 63. The standard is clear that an owner or operator is
required to meet only one of these requirements; the outlet
concentration or the HAP-specific fraction removed. Any ^
technology can be used to meet these limits as long as it is
demonstrated to meet the standards in accordance with the test
methods and procedures in the rule, and as long as approved
continuous compliance monitoring is conducted.
At proposal, the EPA explained that the fraction removed and
outlet VOHAP concentration limits were based on data gathered
from this industry, and further supported by data gathered during
development of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON--40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart G). In both the proposed and final rules, the fraction
removal requirement depends on the HAP compound in the
wastewater. As pointed out by commenter IV-D-13, the
requirements of the final HON rule differ from those at proposal
and Subpart EE should also be revised. Section '63.703(gj of
Subpart EE requires the fraction removed specified in Table 9 of
40 CFR Part 63, Subpart G of the HON for HAP compounds from
magnetic tape manufacturing operations that may be present in
wastewater. Therefore, MEK must be removed by 95 percent, and
MIBK and toluene must be removed by 99 percent. These fraction
removed values, and the others in Table 9 of Subpart G, were
determined by EPA in developing the HON and were based on
vapor-liquid equilibrium data for each compound considered. The
removal efficiencies should not differ for magnetic tape
2-47
-------
manufacturing operations. The final rule also specifies that the
HAP that must be removed are only those that are from magnetic
tape manufacturing operations. Thus, if methanol is in the
wastewater stream, it must only be removed by 31 percdnt as
specified in Table 9 in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart G. If the
methanol is not from magnetic tape manufacturing operations,
Subpart EE does not require that it be removed. !
The test method to be used to demonstrate compliance with
the removal efficiency is unchanged from proposal, but! is
clarified in the final rule. In the final rule, owners or
operators may demonstrate compliance with the outlet i
concentration or removal efficiency by analyzing the wkstewater
for HAP using Method 305. This method is the appropriate
method for measuring VOHAP concentration because it quantifies
the emissions potential from a wastewater stream, not just the
concentration of the HAP in the stream at the time the!sample is
collected. Section 63.705(b)(9)(i) explains how to interpret
data from Method 305 when an outlet VOHAP concentration is being
demonstrated. Method 305 is also used to demonstrate compliance
with a percent efficiency. As explained in § 63.705(h)(3)(ii),
the inlet and outlet VOHAP concentration must then be adjusted'by
a factor to obtain HAP concentrations; the factor is compound
specific and is found in table 34 of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart G.
As an alternative to Method 305, § 63.705(b)(9)(ii) allows
owners or operators to use any test method to measure HAP that
has been validated according to Method 301 of Appendix A to
40 CFR Part 63. When an alternate test method is used7i and an
owner or operator is complying with the outlet VOHAP i
concentration limit, the HAP concentration measured rausf: be
corrected to obtain a VOHAP concentration. As stated in
§ 63.705(b) (9) (ii) (A), this factor is found in table 34^ of 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart G. If demonstrating compliance with the percent
efficiency limit and using an alternate test method to measure
HAP, no adjustment is necessary. ;
2-48
-------
2.8.4 Miscellaneous
Comment: Three conimenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-14, IV-D-16)
recommended that EPA allow an equivalent compliance limit for
reductions in HAP for facilities that use water-based coatings or
reduce the amount of HAP applied per unit of tape manufactured.
The first and second commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-14) stated
that this would be consistent with the NSPS, and would encourage
pollution prevention. The first commenter suggested a limit of
0.143 kilograms (kg) of HAP per liter (L) of coating solids,
which is calculated by multiplying the VOC limit in the NSPS by a
ratio of 0.05/0.07 to reflect the 95 percent control requirement
of the NESHAP compared to the 93 percent control requirement of
the NSPS. The second commenter suggested a HAP coating limit
similar to that calculated in the magnetic tape NSPS.
The third commenter (IV-D-16) suggested a limit of 0.12 kg
VOC emissions per kg of solids, which they claim equates to
95 percent control for a coating that is applied at 30 percent
solids and 70 percent VOC. The commenter also suggested that
emissions be averaged on a monthly basis, not a 3-day rolling
average, which it claims is not practical.
Response: The EPA recognizes the advantages of a low-HAP
coating limit and has therefore included such a limit in the
final rule as a means of encouraging pollution prevention. The .
final rule includes a HAP coating limit, whereby owners or
operators are exempt from requirements for a coating operation if
a coating containing less than 0.18 kg of HAP per L of coating
solids is used for that coating operation. This" limit was
calculated using the same methodology used to establish the
alternate limit for the NSPS. The low-HAP coating limit in
Subpart EE was calculated by applying a 95 percent efficiency to
a typical coating containing 0.8 gallons of solvent per
0.2 gallons of solids, and that has a coating density of
7.5 pounds of solvent per gallon of coating. Data collected from
industry to support the NSPS found the typical magnetic tape
coating to be 80 percent solvent and 20 percent solids, and these
coating parameters were used in developing the low-VOC coating
2-49
-------
for the NSPS (0.25 kg solvent/L coating solids). In the case of
Subpart EE, all solvent is considered HAP; whereas in the NSPS,
all solvent was considered VOC because VOC's are regulated by the
NSPS.
The EPA believes that the differences in the coating limits
suggested by the commenters (0.143 kg HAP/L coating solids and
0.12 kg VOC/L coating solids) and the limit calculated by EPA can
be traced to rounding of the limit calculated in the NSPS to
0.2 kg solvent/L coating solids and assuming a representative
coating mix of 30 percent solids and 70 percent solvent,
I
respectively.
As required by § 63.703(c)(5), owners or operators that opt
to comply with the low-HAP limit must determine the HAP content
of each batch of coating used, in accordance with the procedures
in § 63.705(c)(5) of the final rule. No averaging period is
applicable. If a coating with an identical formulation is
subsequently used, the original calculations can be used to
demonstrate compliance. Section 63.706(f) requires the owner or
operator using a low HAP coating to maintain records of the HAP
content of each batch of coating applied, and records of the
formulation data that support the HAP content calculations. In
accordance with § 63.707(i)(2), these calculated HAP contents for
each batch of coating are reported as the monitored operating
parameter value in the excess emissions and continuous'monitoring
system performance report and summary report required by
§ 63.10(e).
i /
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-17) stated that the:rule
i
should not require that all vents on storage tanks be sealed and
vented to the control device because this may create back
pressure and safety problems. The commenter stated that vents
are necessary to relieve excess pressure, and that the
i
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires
such relief vents.
Response: The EPA recognizes that pressure and vacuum
relief valves are routinely installed for safety purposes. It
was not the intent of the rule to preclude owners or operators
2-50 :
-------
from continuing to use such equipment. Section 63.703(j) of the
final rule has been added to clarify this point.
2.9 SELECTION OF TEST METHODS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
2.9.1 Site-specific Operating Parameters
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) recommended that
§ 63.704(b)(2) of the proposed rule, which establishes the
maximum temperature of vapor exhaust stream as the site-specific
operating parameter for condensers, specify where in the process
the vapor exhaust stream temperature should be measured.
Response: For condensers the temperature of the vapor
exhaust stream should be measured at the condenser exit, and
should be located a sufficient distance from the outlet such that
ambient temperatures do not bias the reading.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that in
§ 63.704(b)(4) of the proposed rule, which establishes the
minimum gas temperature upstream of the catalyst bed and the
minimum gas temperature difference across the catalyst bed as
site-specific operating parameters for catalytic incinerators,
more information than temperatures must be recorded to ensure
compliance. According to the commenter, the temperature rise
across the catalyst bed varies according to the volatile organic
compound (VOC) concentration of the gases going into the bed. A
parameter must be specified to indicate the VOC loading to the
incinerator that corresponds to different temperature increases
across the catalyst bed.
Response: The standard has been clarified to allow owners
or operators to set a range of temperatures for the site-specific
operating parameter to account for different operating conditions
[§ 63.704(b) (11) (i) 1 . Thus, when inlet.conditions vary, the
owner or operator will have a range of appropriate temperatures
from which to determine compliance with the standard.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that in
§ 63.704(c)(3)(iv) of the proposed rule, which contains
provisions for continuing compliance for control devices other
than carbon adsorption, the phrase "or at an average outlet
concentration exceeding the site-specific operating parameter
2-51
-------
value, as calculated for any 3-hour period..." does not make
sense. If "outlet concentration" means HAP concentration, it
does not make sense to say that the concentration cannot exceed
the site-specific operating parameter value since these are not
always HAP or VOC concentrations.
Response; This section of the regulation has been
clarified. Owners or operators may not operate control devices
in any way that violates the site-specific operating parameter
provisions in those cases where the operating parameter is not a
HAP or VOC concentration.
Comment: One commenter.(IV-D-4) suggested EPA include in
§ 63.704 (c) (7) of the proposed rule, which requires installation
and operation of equipment to measure the site-specific operating
parameters, a provision for a 5 percent variation of the
operating parameter used to determine compliance. The; commenter
claimed that a 5 percent variation would still satisfy the
requirements for maintaining a total enclosure. The commenter
also pointed out that allowing a 5 percent variation would be
consistent with the Magnetic Tape NSPS, and would eliminate
redundant recordkeeping and minimize confusion between:the two
standards. Specifically, the commenter suggested changing the
wording of § 63.704(c)(7) of the proposed rule by replacing the
word "greater" with the phrase "5 percent more." '.
Response: As previously stated, the final rule allows
owners or operators to establish a range of operating parameter
values during the initial performance test to account for
variation in operating conditions [§ 63.704(b)(11)(i)].
Therefore, the EPA does not believe it is necessary to'specify an
allowable variance. Also, as each operation is different, the
actual range of values should be established by the owner or
operator of the affected source. '-
.Comment: One commenter (IV-D-6) believed establishing water
and steam feed rates for continuous compliance monitoring could
impose restrictions on the proper operation of the stripping
column. The commenter stated that stripping columns can operate
efficiently at feed rates lower than originally designed.
2-52
-------
However, the steam-to-feed ratio would differ greatly over the
range of feed rates. The quantity of steam used and water
present in a distillation system is primarily dependent upon the
age and performance of the activated carbon used in the carbon
system. Depending on when the compliance determination is
conducted, the parameter chosen could indicate noncompliance when
the column is operating properly.
Response: The rule has been rewritten to allow owners or
operators using a steam stripper the option of conducting a test
to determine the appropriate steam-to-feed ratio or a range of
steam-to-feed ratios that are appropriate for a variety of
operating conditions. Testing to determine a steam-to-feed ratio
is an option, not a requirement, and therefore the costs for
testing have not been included in the compliance costs for the
standard.
As an alternative to using the steam-to-feed ratio as the
site specific operating parameter, owner or operators are allowed
to monitor the steam stripper outlet VOHAP concentration on a
monthly basis to show continuous compliance with the standards.
Because the wastewater stream is not expected to be greatly
variable, monthly monitoring was determined to be an adequate
frequency for determining continuous compliance.
2.9.2 Test Methods
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that in
§ 63.704(b)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule, the use of a continuous
emission monitor (CEM) to demonstrate compliance does not make
sense because this part of the regulation requires the owner or
operator to determine which parameters can be used to show
continuous compliance, and to determine the range these
parameters must be within to be in compliance. The commenters
further stated that in this section, it is not clear whether an
inlet and outlet CEM measurement can be used to show initial
compliance (if such measurement can be used, then state that this
is an alternative to the initial compliance test), or if it can
be used only to show continuous compliance tin which case it
should be reworded similar to § 63.704(b)(i)].
2-53
-------
Response: The language of the regulation has been revised
to clarify that GEM's may be used to show continuous compliance
with percent HAP removal provisions. Use of CEM's to'show
initial compliance is allowed according to § 63.705 (a)(1) as an
alternative to an initial performance test.
2.9.3 Compliance and Monitoring
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-14) suggested
changing the material balance averaging period from 3 days to
30 days. The first commenter (IV-D-4) recommended a 30-day
averaging period for the rolling liquid VOC material balance for
affected coating operations controlled by a dedicated solvent
recovery device in § 63.705(c) of the proposed rule, instead of
the 3-day averaging period proposed by EPA. The commenter stated
that a 30-day averaging period is consistent with the ;NSPS, which
provides consistency and eliminates unnecessary additional
recordkeeping. Also, the 3-day averaging period would not be
feasible for solvent recovery systems with long adsorption
cycles. The solvent used in one day would not necessarily be
recovered in the same day, presenting incomplete balances in a
short averaging period.
The second commenter (IV-D-14) recommended that EPA increase
the 3-day rolling average for material balance to one calendar
month. The commenter stated that a 3-day rolling average is
impractical and unreasonable, with overly burdensome
recordkeeping requirements. The commenter further stated that
any facility that borders on 95 control would probably not use a
material balance mechanism to demonstrate compliance. ,
Response: The EPA has increased the material balance
averaging time period from 3 days to 7 days in the finja.1 rule.
The EPA agrees that a 3-day average may not be adequate to
account for variability in recovered solvent due to changes in
production and the adsorption cycle of the solvent recpvery
device, as noted by the commenters. However, the EPA does not
believe that 30 days is necessary to achieve this, and that
7 days is a reasonable averaging period for most facilities.
Model VOC rules developed for RACT in State implementation plans
2-54 :
-------
require a 7-day rolling period for material balance calculation
of the overall emission reduction efficiency of a solvent
recovery control system (e.g., carbon adsorber). The EPA does
not agree with the commenters that a 7-day averaging period will
be more burdensome than a 30-day averaging period because the
records necessary to compute a material balance are of an ongoing
nature. The only significant difference is that the overall
efficiency will be calculated on a 7-day cycle rather than a
30-day cycle. An owner or operator who does not believe that
7 days is an adequate averaging period given their specific
solvent recovery circumstances, and who wishes to use alternate
compliance techniques may provide their reasoning in a petition
to the Administrator in accordance with § 63.705(j) of Subpart EE
and § 63.7 (f) of Subpart A. Also, the final rule offers other
compliance provisions for users of solvent recovery devices.
Comment: One commenter (VI-D-9) recommended that the
correction for the incinerator alternate emission limit should be
changed from 3 percent oxygen to at least 7 percent oxygen. The
commenter claims that 3 percent is too stringent for incinerators
and is. more appropriate for boilers. Incinerators typically
require more excess oxygen. For example, the NSPS for municipal.
waste combustors requires 7 percent correction for oxygen. Since
the incinerators that will be used to comply with this NESHAP
will operate with an amount of excess air that is closer to that
of municipal waste combustors, the commenter believed it would
seem reasonable to require a correction to at least 7 percent
oxygen.
Response: After considering the comment and the affected
processes, EPA decided that a correction for oxygen was not
needed. The EPA agrees that the 3 percent oxygen correction
factor is more appropriate for boilers or incinerators that are
combusting streams with very little oxygen. Because most
emissions are generated from coatings as they dry, the solvent
stream to the incinerator is mixed with large amounts of air. A
correction factor to a lower oxygen content would make the
2-55
-------
standard more stringent than intended. Also, the rule was
clarified that the 20 ppmv HAP limit is per HAP compound.
.Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) recommended moving
§ 63.704(b) (5) (iii) of the proposed rule to the monitoring
section because this section states that monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with the plan submitted to the
Administrator unless the Administrator requires an alternate
monitoring scheme. The commenter stated that placing this
requirement in the compliance section is not consistent with
§ 63.704(b), which requires determination of the value; of the
monitored parameter that shows compliance with the standard
during the stack test. j
Response; All of § 63.704(b) discusses compliance and
§ 63.704(b)(6) of the final rule specifies requirements for a
total enclosure operating parameter monitoring plan that must be
submitted to the Administrator. Several different parameters
could be monitored to show compliance with a total enclosure. In
the plan of § 63.704(b)(6), the owner or operator proposes what
parameter will be monitored for' compliance, the value of which
will be set during capture efficiency testing. This is
consistent with the rest of § 63.704(b), which discusses
compliance monitoring requirements.
.Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that the
sentence in § 63.704(c)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule, which reads
"the thermocouple calibration should be verified every 3 months,
or the thermocouple should be replaced," is unclear and needs to
be reworded. The commenter questioned whether this sentence
means that the thermocouple should be calibrated every 3 months
and if it will not calibrate properly, it should be replaced, or
whether it means that the thermocouple should either be
calibrated every 3 months or if the owner or operator does not
calibrate it, they have to replace it.
Response: The regulation has been clarified. The language
of the rule now states that either the thermocouple is :to be
calibrated properly or it is to be replaced.
2-56
-------
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that the
phrase "no additional compliance monitoring is required" in
§ 63.704 (e) of the proposed rule, which specifies compliance
requirements for owners and operators complying through the use
of a solvent recovery device, is unclear. The commenters were
not sure if it means that if the owner or operator recovers
solvent, they are exempt from §§ 63.704(c)(3) and (4), which
discuss continuous monitoring requirements. Furthermore, it is
not clear what compliance is required.
Response: In the final rule, compliance requirements for
solvent recovery devices are specified under § 63.705(c)(1). The
requirements of § 63.704(c) (1), (2), and (3) of the rule and
§ 63.8(b)(2) and (3), (c), (d), (e), and (g)(1) and (2), and (f)
of the General Provisions do not apply to solvent recovery
devices that control emissions from an affected coating operation
only, and for which the owner or operator performs a
liquid-liquid VOC material balance. Sections 63.704(b)(9) and
(c)(9) clarify that results from the material balance calculation
may be used to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with
§ 63.703(c).
2.9.4 Miscellaneous
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4) suggested that EPA require
the total enclosure to be maintained only during actual coating
operations, including startup and shutdown, to be consistent with
the NSPS. The commenter also noted that this is the only time
emissions from the coater occur. The commenter suggested that
the phrase "during actual coating operations" be" added to
§ 63.704(c)(7) of the proposed rule.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter that the
total enclosure may need to be maintained only during coating
operations, including startup and shutdown periods. This
approach is consistent with the NSPS for the magnetic tape
industry. The coater is not an emission source when it is not
operating therefore, for those periods when it is not in
operation the total enclosure is not necessary to meet the
standards. However, other potential HAP emission points within
2-57
-------
the total enclosure must also be considered. For example, if the
mix room is located in the total enclosure, the enclosure must be
maintained when mix operations are conducted. The rule now
clarifies that an enclosure need only be running when HAP
emission points in the enclosure are emitting HAP.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1 Tacconi) stated
that § 63.704(c)(8) of the proposed rule, which contains
requirements for vent systems that contain bypass lines that
could divert vent streams away from the control device!, should
include computer monitoring of valve position (i.e., limit
switches for fully closed valve positions). Computer monitoring
allows for continuous remote monitoring of any bypass of the
control device. According to the commenter, the lock-and-key
configuration is not feasible for most bypass lines, because they
are used as emergency safety release vents. The car-seal or
rupture disk option, while feasible, would be an expensive
retrofit for vents currently monitored by position indicators
because of the relatively large number of bypass vents| in
operation. . I
Response: The request to maintain computer monitoring of
bypass valves rather than retrofitting bypass valves with
i
car-seals or rupture disks is reasonable. The Agency's concern
is that bypass valves not be unmonitored or allowed to; be opened
unnecessarily, thereby circumventing the control device(s) . The
regulation has been revised to allow this option for bypass valve
monitoring. Specifically, § 63.704(c) (10) (iii) requires that
owners or operators ensure that any bypass valve" is in,the closed
position through continuous monitoring of valve position, and
that the monitoring system be inspected at least once every
month. Section 63.706 (c) (2) requires that records be kept of the
monthly inspections, and of any time periods during which the
valve position was open. Occurrences in which flow is diverted
to the atmosphere are required to be reported by § 63.707(i)(4).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4) recommended that:EPA allow
an exemption for monitoring of solvent recovery process unit
condenser vents that vent back to the primary control device.
2-58 i
-------
The commenter reasoned that emissions from these vents would be
controlled by the control device and monitored by CEM's;
therefore, no additional monitoring is required.
Response: The intent of the regulation was not to require
monitoring of condenser vents that are vented back to the primary
control device, because the primary control device would be
monitored. The provisions of § 63.704(b)(2) and (c)(4) have been
reworded to exclude condensers associated with process equipment
such as distillation and stripping columns.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) recommended that in the
requirements for demonstrating compliance for a solvent recovery
device [§ 63.705 (c) (1) (iii) (C) of the proposed rule]', EPA clarify
by example exactly what type of device might be suitable for
measurement of the amount of VOC recovered by the solvent
recovery device. For example, the commenter suggested that a CEM
and a carbon adsorption system could be used as well as a
condenser to remove solvent.
Response: One possible scenario in which § 63.705(c)(1) may
be used for compliance determination is the case in which a
solvent recovery device (such as a carbon adsorber or condenser)
is used to control VOC emissions, and the VOC solvent is
subsequently collected and reused. For example, a source may use
a carbon adsorber to collect VOC, desorb the carbon beds with
nitrogen, and collect the recovered VOC solvent in a storage
vessel. In this example, the measurement device used to
determine the amount of VOC recovered could be a scale on which
the storage vessel sits. The same scenario could exist with a
condenser; condensed VOC solvent could be collected in a storage
vessel, the contents of which are weighed.
The EPA does not think that a CEM would be an accurate
accounting of the amount of VOC solvent recovered. Presumably,
the commenter was thinking of determining the VOC applied at the
coater, and assuming the VOC collected would be less than that
measured by the CEM. There could be some difficulties with such
a procedure. The inlet measurement will be the quantity of VOC
applied at the coater, which would likely be in terms of volume
2-59
-------
or weight of liquid. The GEM is measuring the concentration of
the vapor exhaust; the flow rate would also need to be known to
calculate the quantity of VOC in the exhaust. Even if this is
done, however, the comparison of a gas outlet stream to a liquid
inlet stream is inferior to the measurement of two liquid streams
such as in the example described above. Note, however,; that an
owner or operator is not required to do a material balance when a
solvent recovery device is used to comply with the standards for
coating operations. Other monitoring methods are also allowed,
such as GEM's on carbon adsorbers.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) requested that EPA clarify
whether the provisions for demonstrating initial compliance by
type of control system found in paragraphs § 63.705(c)(1), (2),
(3) and (4) attempt to describe every possible control scenario
and what is intended for control scenarios other than those
described in those paragraphs. The commenter stated that other
control device scenarios are possible that are not described.
Response: The EPA has clarified the language of
§ 63.705(c)(3) in the final rule to state that the provisions of
that paragraph are appropriate "when a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon adsorber vessel is
used to control emissions from an affected source." The EPA
believes that with this clarification, paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(4) cover all control device scenarios.
As the commenter pointed out, paragraph (c)(1) covers the
situation in which a solvent recovery device (carbon adsorber or
condenser) is used to recover HAP solvent from 'affected coating
operations only, and compliance is demonstrated by performing a
material balance. Paragraph (c)(3) describes compliance
l
provisions for the situation in which emissions from affected
sources are controlled by a fixed-bed carbon adsorption system
with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon adsorbed vessel.
Paragraph (c)(2) basically encompasses all other situations.
Paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) account for the situation,in which
nonaffected emission points may be controlled concurrently with
i'
affected emission points by instructing the owner or operator (in
2-60
-------
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii)) to isolate or segregate
nonaffected emission points from affected emission points. Thus,
if affected emission points and nonaffected emission points are
concurrently controlled, the owner or operator would ensure that
the nonaffected emission points are not operating during the
compliance test for this subpart.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) stated that EPA should
include in the design specifications that must be submitted to
demonstrate compliance for wastewater steam strippers the
vapor-liquid equilibrium data for stripped compounds.
Response: Vapor-equilibrium data are helpful for
determining the extent to which a compound can be removed from a
wastewater stream through steam stripping. In the
RON (59 FR 19402), the EPA specified the expected fraction
removed for each organic compound to be steam stripped. The
fraction removed was determined based on the vapor-liquid
equilibrium data for a given compound. In this rule, the EPA has
again specified the appropriate fraction removed by referencing
the HON rule. Therefore, the EPA does not believe that it is
necessary for sources to submit vapor-liquid equilibrium data.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) suggested that
§ 63.705(d)(2) of the proposed rule, which specifies requirements
for the initial compliance demonstration for facilities that use
piping or ductwork to direct HAP emissions from an affected
source to a control device, include language to clarify that the
compliance demonstration specified under this section is in
addition to the requirements to demonstrate 95 percent overall
HAP control efficiency.
Response: Section 63.705 contains provisions for
performance test methods and procedures to determine compliance.
Procedures to determine compliance begin with § 63.705(c). This
section specifies that sources subject to § 63.703(c), which is
the 95 percent overall HAP control efficiency requirement, must
demonstrate initial compliance by following procedures of
paragraph (c) and (d) among others. Therefore, it is clear that
2-61
-------
the requirements of § 63.705(d) are in addition to those
necessary to demonstrate 95 percent overall control efficiency.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that a compliance
demonstration should be based on inlet and outlet HAP
concentrations with the option available for the owner or
operator to measure VOC concentrations. The commenter maintained
that the owner/operator should have the option of deciding
whether to measure only HAP or all HAP and non-HAP that fall
under the definition of VOC under this subpart.
Response: The intent of the proposed rule was to include
the option of measuring VOC as a surrogate for HAP to make the
rule more flexible. However, as written the proposed rule
requires measurement of VOC in some cases instead of HAP. The
commenter is correct that the owner or operator should1 have the
option of deciding whether to measure HAP or VOC, and the
regulation has been revised to make this clear. |
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) requested that EPA clarify
the term "steam-to-feed ratio" and provide an alternative to
continuous measurement of this parameter for operations which
have batch feed. The commenter suggested that organics may be
added to a steam stripper in batch mode and then the steam may be
applied.
Response: The steam-to-feed ratio is calculated in the same
way for batch as for continuous operations. It is the mass of
steam applied per liter of wastewater feed. Measurement of the
steam-to-feed ratio is required only when the stripper! is
operating. Thus, for batch operations, the steam-to-feed ratio
would only be monitored while a batch is being fed to the
stripper. In the final rule, owners or operators may
alternatively monitor the total VOHAP concentration of the
wastewater discharge on a monthly basis.
2.10 SELECTION OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) stated that the
owner or operator should be required to calculate monthly usage
and also calculate a rolling 12-month total usage to compare to
the usage thresholds in § 63.701(a)(2) of the proposed rule. The
2-62
-------
annual report would include each of the previous 12-month totals.
If one of the thresholds in § 63.701(a)(2) is exceeded, the owner
or operator must report within 30 days and comply with the
standard within 1 year of the exceedance.
Response: The EPA agrees that HAP usage should be
calculated on a monthly basis for those owners and operators that
meet the requirements of § 63.703(b) of the final rule and that
the owner or operator should report an exceedance within 30 days.
An exceedance would be a violation of the HAP usage limit.
However, in the final rule, EPA has clarified that the source
shall be required to comply with the control requirements for
major sources only if the owner or operator chooses to no longer
be subject to the HAP usage limit and in doing so becomes a major
source. In such a case, the owner or operator would be required
to have the same amount of time to comply with the control
requirements as would an existing source, according to
§ 63.6(c)(5) of the General provisions. The HAP usage limits
would continue to apply until the control requirements are met.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) suggested that § 63.707(h)
of the proposed rule (HAP utilization reporting schedule) should
allow the implementing agency to specify that date by which a low
HAP usage facility must report. The commenter stated that the
30-day deadline for reporting in the proposed standard may not
coincide with the requirements of State reporting programs.
According to the commenter, allowing the implementing agency to
specify reporting dates would avoid multiple submittals of annual
usage data by a facility.
Response: The final rule (§ 63.707(j)) has been clarified
to state that owners or operators reporting annual HAP
utilization to comply with § 63.703(b) must submit the first
annual report within 30 days of the compliance date of the
standards. On-going reports are required to be submitted
annually. The EPA is required to specify the minimum reporting
and recordkeeping for the final rule; States with existing
programs in place may submit their programs to EPA for -approval
as equivalent in accordance with Subpart E of Part 63. Also,
2-63
-------
§ 63.10(a)(5) of Subpart A specifies that the dates by which
reports must be submitted under Part 63 may be made consistent
with the established reporting timeframes of a State with
authority to implement the part. Such changes must be mutually
agreed upon by the owner or operator of the affected source and
the State, be implemented in accordance with § 63.9(i) of
Subpart A, and can begin 1 year after the affected source's
compliance date for a relevant standard.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-9, IV-D-13) stated
that keeping records of the freeboard ratio each time liquid is
added to wash sinks be eliminated. Instead, commenters suggested
that the maximum solvent liquid level that would meet the
freeboard ratio should be clearly marked by a suitable '.mechanical
or physical means. Two commenters (IV-D-04,- IV-D-13) suggested
language that stated: "Follow a written procedure which ensures
a minimum freeboard ratio of 0.75 is maintained each time HAP are
added to the wash sink." One commenter (IV-D-09) also stated
that compliance with the freeboard ratio should also be required
when a part is submersed.
Response; The final rule states that owners or operators of
wash sinks containing HAP must limit HAP emissions by maintaining
a freeboard ratio of 75 percent at all times. Therefore, the
freeboard ratio requirement would be in effect when a part is
submersed. The final rule [§ 63.705(e)(1)] also clarifies that
the freeboard ratio may be determined by physical means, such as
a mark on a tank that indicates the solvent level corresponding
to a 75 percent freeboard ratio. As such, records could involve
keeping a checklist to document that the freeboard ratio is at
the appropriate level every .time that solvent is added to the
sink. |
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) recommended replacing
quarterly reporting with the requirement to produce repprts when
requested, with an adequate lead time to compile the report. The
commenter claimed that reporting requirements are wasteful
because it is unlikely that this information will be analyzed by
either EPA or the States.
2-64
-------
Response: When this subpart was proposed, the General
Provisions contained in Subpart A were also a proposal, and
required quarterly reporting. The provisions of Subpart A are
now final and require in § 63.10(e)(3) the submission of
semiannual reports of excess emissions and continuous monitoring
systems performance. Quarterly reports are only required if
exceedances have occurred, or if the Administrator requires more
frequent reporting to determine a source's compliance status.
The EPA does not believe that semiannual reporting is
unreasonable; this reporting frequency has been determined to be
the minimum necessary to ascertain the compliance status of a
source.
2.11 INTERACTION OF THE MAGNETIC TAPE NESHAP WITH THE GENERAL
PROVISIONS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4) stated that unless the
compliance period is increased, the General Provisions compliance
extension deadlines [§ 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A) and (B)] should be
decreased to 6 months. This would allow sources to evaluate the
impacts of the NESHAP and the controls that are required before
requesting compliance extensions.
The commenter also suggested that CEM's should only be
required on the exhaust from each affected source's control
device contrary to the requirements of § 63.8(b)(2) of the
General Provisions. Unless the promulgated rule allows equipment
vented to a common control device to be considered a single
affected source, EPA should not required CEM's on the exhaust of
each affected source.
The commenter recommended that EPA require one startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan for an entire facility, not for
each affected source (§ 63.6 of the General Provisions). The
General Provisions require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan for each affected source; as "affected source" is defined
for this NESHAP, a separate plan would be required for each piece
of mix equipment, storage tank, wash sink, etc.
The commenter suggested that EPA incorporate construction
notifications for affected sources into the permitting program to
2-65
-------
minimize duplicative efforts. The commenter also suggested that
separate notifications not be required for construction or
reconstruction of an affected source that is not a major source
(§ 63.5 of the General Provisions).
In general, the commenter recommended that EPA review the
proposed standard for conformity with the General Provisions and
modify the standard accordingly.
Response; The final rule contains Table 1, which clarifies
the applicability of the General Provisions (Subpart A) to owners
or operators subject to Subpart EE. In general, the majority of
the provisions of Subpart A apply to owners or operators subject
to Subpart EE. Some exceptions include provisions that pertain
to opacity standards and associated monitoring and provisions
pertaining to startup and shutdown. The emission limitations in
Subpart EE apply during periods of startup and shutdown so a plan
for dealing with such periods is not necessary. Another
exception is one noted by the commenter; Subpart EE overrides the
requirement in the General Provisions that a continuous
monitoring system (CMS) be installed at the effluent of each
affected source [§ 63.704 (c) (2) (iii)].
As discussed in Section 2.2 of this document, the;definition
I ,
of affected source has been expanded to the entire facility. As
such, requirements of Subpart A that were unclear because of a
narrow affected source definition are more apparent now. For
example, given the broader affected source definition, only one '
startup, shutdown, malfunction plan is needed for an entire
facility. '
Given the change in the compliance timeframe for existing
sources, as discussed in Section 2.7 of this document,'the
provisions of § 63.6(i)(4)(i) are reasonable. In accordance with
this provision, owners or operators of existing sources must
apply for an extension of compliance within l year of the
compliance date. !
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that the^monitoring
frequency of 15 minutes is excessive and should be replaced by a
frequency of no more than 60 minute intervals. The commenter
2-66
-------
argued that for fluidized carbon adsorption units 15 minute
intervals is excessive, wasteful, and detrimental to good data
quality control procedures. Because of the consistency of
emissions from a fluidized carbon adsorption system a monitoring
frequency of 60 minutes is appropriate.
Response: The EPA selected 15 minute averages for sources
conducting monitoring under this subpart because it is consistent
with the General Provisions and the NSPS for this industry. The
EPA believes that this consistency is important because many
sources will be subject to the NSPS as well as this subpart. The
EPA does not think that 15 minute averages is excessive, nor
should it compromise data quality control. Therefore, the
requirement is unchanged.
2.12 OVERLAP OF MAGNETIC TAPE NESHAP WITH OTHER STANDARDS AND
SOURCE CATEGORIES
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) advised EPA to
discuss in the regulation the overlap between the proposed
standards and the NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities
(40 CFR 60.710-718). One commenter (IV-D-1) questioned if the
NSPS has any effect on the applicability of Subpart EE or a
company's compliance status under Subpart EE. The other
commenter (IV-D-7) requested that EPA indicate whether the NESHAP
applies to a facility that is in compliance with the NSPS.
Response: According to the General Provisions § 63.1(a)(3),
no emission standard or other requirement established under
Part 63 is to be interpreted as diminishing or replacing
requirements of a more stringent emission limitation or other
requirement established by the Administrator (including
requirements of Part 60) or requirements of a standard issued
under State authority. Thus, two or more emission standards or
other requirements may be applicable to an affected source. The
more stringent requirement takes precedence.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) requested that when more
than one MACT standard can apply to a source, EPA should include
specific language to indicate which standard takes precedence for
the source. For example, wash sinks may also be subject to the
2-67
-------
halogenated solvent cold cleaners MACT standard; thus, two
conflicting standards could apply to the same source.
Another coiranenter (IV-D-13) brought this same example to
EPA's attention. The commenter suggested that EPA exclude wash
sinks that may also meet the definition of "solvent cleaning
machine" under the proposed MACT rule for halogenated solvent
cleaning (58 FR 62589), to avoid duplicative regulation for wash
sinks that use halogenated solvents.
Response; As noted in the previous response, the General
Provisions provide for circumstances of overlapping regulations
on an affected source. However, in this case exempting wash
sinks that are also regulated under Subpart T--National Emission
Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning from Subpart EE is
reasonable. Subpart T requirements are more stringent than
requirements in Subpart EE for wash sinks (solvent cleaning
machines) that use any blend of halogenated solvent as a cleaning
solvent. This exemption easily addresses any possible confusion
on the part of owners or operators and States concerning
applicable requirements for one emission source at magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities. ;
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) believed that their
facility would be more appropriately regulated under the paper
and other webs source category than the magnetic tape source
category even though they manufacture a product that contains
magnetic particles. This commenter discussed their rationale and
provided EPA with two methods that could be used to distinguish
between the two source categories for their facility.
The commenter stated that EPA should ensure that the
magnetic tape NESHAP does not overlap with other source
categories. The commenter believed the broad definition of
magnetic tape will encompass operations that should be a part of
paper and other webs source category, which are different source
categories with different promulgation deadlines developed under
EPA's Source Category Ranking System. Also, the commenter stated
that MACT determinations must be made separately for each
category. Because EPA has not made a MACT floor determination
2-68
-------
for paper and other webs, it does not have the authority to
regulate paper and other webs under the magnetic tape source
category. Finally, the commenter argued that by including
facilities in a source category that does not represent the
primary use of that facility, EPA is forcing control requirements
that were not based on other "peer" facilities; Congress intended
controls to be based on the best-controlled similar sources.
The commenter suggested that EPA use primary product
rationale to distinguish between magnetic tape and paper and
other web source categories. Primary product criteria may be
used to determine the source category applicable to equipment
that is used for multiple products. The commenter suggested that
the primary product be defined as the product with greatest
actual square footage of product coated when compared to total
product coated on an annual basis. If more than one product were
considered primary and at least one of these met the definition
of magnetic tape then the operation would be subject to the
magnetic tape rule. The commenter noted that only 1 percent of
its annual production in square feet in 1993 would meet the
definition of magnetic tape, thereby triggering requirements of
Subpart EE.
The commenter alternatively suggested that EPA change the
definition of magnetic tape to be based on the percent of solids
in the coating mix (magnetic particle density in the coating
mix), to distinguish between source categories. The commenter
suggested changing the definition of magnetic tape to exclude
products with a coating mix containing less than 10 percent
magnetic particles by weight, to distinguish between source
categories by the products produced.
Response: The Agency has addressed in Section 2.3.3 the
question of regulating nonmagnetic products under Subpart EE.
The Agency has considered the request made by the commenter and
agrees.that a primary product distinction should be made in some
cases to avoid including coating lines in the magnetic tape
NESHAP that have such a small amount of magnetic tape production
that it is more appropriate to regulate them exclusively under
2-69
-------
Paper and Other Web Coatings, rather than Subpart EE. If
1 percent or less of a magnetic tape product is coated;on a
coating line, based on the annual square footage of all products
produced on that line, then the line is not subject to
Subpart EE. A cutoff of l percent, rather than a higher
I
percentage number, was selected to minimize potentially
uncontrolled emissions from magnetic tape production on a coating
line that would otherwise be regulated under the paper!and other
webs source category.
The definition of magnetic tape was not changed due to the
uncertain nature of product development. The percent composition
of magnetic particles may change with the development of new
magnetic tape products and a change in the definition of magnetic
tape might limit the effectiveness of Subpart EE to control
emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing in the future.
2.13 WORDING OF THE STANDARD
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-4) recommended that EPA change
the definition of mix preparation equipment to read: "Mix
preparation equipment means the stationary vessels, except for
mills..." The commenter explained that portable equipment, such
as drums, that are used in mix preparation present difficulties
when attempting to install emission control equipment for their
use. Also, portable vessels would contain relatively small
quantities of HAP, would be kept closed whenever possible, and
would have small openings that would minimize HAP emissions.
Finally, portable equipment is often used during experimental
production of new products and during evaluation' of new
manufacturing methods, on a temporary and intermittent basis.
Response: Information available to EPA from industry
surveys indicates that portable mix equipment is used to a great
extent by some sources in this source category. In fac't, at some
sources, greater than 50 percent of the tanks are portable and
are not necessarily smaller in capacity than stationary vessels.
Therefore, the emission potential from portable tanks is not
negligible. Given this information, the final rule doe|s not
exempt portable mix equipment from the .control requirements.
2-70
-------
Although these vessels may have to :be vented to the air pollution
control device in a different manner from stationary vessels, the
EPA believes that it is technically feasible. One facility is
known to vent its portable vessels through flexible hose that
allows the vessels to remain portable. Another alternative would
be to vent the entire mix room that contains all mix preparation
equipment.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) recommended adding
the phrase "with this subpart" after the word "comply" in
§ 63.701(c) of the proposed rule, which defines applicability of
nonmagnetic tape operations within an affected source.
Response: The proposed rule stated in § 63.701 (c) that "the
owner or operator shall comply with the standards in this
subpart" so EPA is not certain what change the commenters
intended. In any event, for the reasons discussed "in Section 2.3
of this document, this provision is not included in the final
rule.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) noted that the
first sentence in § 63.703(b) of the proposed rule appears
incomplete. These commenters stated that the first sentence in
§ 63.703(b)(1) of the proposed rule (requiring 95 percent control
of emissions) is confusing, and should be reworded as follows:
"achieve an overall HAP control efficiency of 95 percent of
gaseous HAP emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix
preparation equipment, coating operation, waste handling device,
condenser vent in solvent recovery, and set of equipment for
flushing fixed lines; or..."
Response: This paragraph of § 63.703 has been revised, in
response to other comments, to clarify that it is acceptable to
vent the room in which affected sources (such as mix preparation
equipment) are located, as long as compliance is determined using
appropriate test methods and procedures. The EPA believes that
the wording of paragraph (c) in .§ 63.703 of the final rule is
clear.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) recommended
clarifying that in § 63.703(b)(2) of the proposed rule
2-71
-------
(concentration limit for incinerators), the alternative
concentration limit applies only to the incinerator outlet and
that all units listed in § 63.703(b)(1) must still be controlled.
As written, it is not clear where the 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) limit applies and that all affected sources at the
stationary source need to be controlled by the incinerator.
These commenters also suggested that § 63.703(b)(2) address the
situation when some affected sources are controlled by an
incinerator and other affected sources are controlled by another
type of control device. The commenters suggested language to be
added to this section of the proposed .rule.
Response; The final rule clarifies that the concentration
limit must be achieved at the outlet of the incinerator, and that
the emission points identified in paragraph (c) of the final rule
need to be controlled regardless of the control technique used.
However, some emission points could be controlled by an
incinerator, and others by another control device achieving
95 percent control. The final rule is also clear that the
concentration limit only applies when an incinerator is used to
control an emission point, and that the incinerator can meet
either the 95 percent reduction limit or the outlet concentration
limit of 20 ppmv.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) suggested adding
the phrase "no less than" in front of "88 percent" in
§ 63.703(d)(1) of the proposed rule (control requirement for wash
sinks).
Response: This change has been incorporate'd.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) recommended
rewording § 63.703 (f) of the proposed rule (control requirements
for wastewater) to state "Wastewater treatment systems. Each
owner or operator of a wastewater treatment system that is an
affected source shall..." since the word "source" is not defined.
These commenters also noted that § 63.703(f)(1) needs an "or" or
"and" at the end, depending on whether either or both of the
options apply.
2-72
-------
Response; This provision has been revised and is now in
§ 63.703(g). The provision states "Each owner or operator of an
affected source shall treat the wastewater discharge..." Also,
an "or" has been added after paragraph (g)(1) because only one of
the two criteria has to be met.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7, IV-D-9, IV-D-13)
noted that § 63.704(b)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule, which
specifies the use of a CEM to measure inlet and outlet VOC
concentrations to determine compliance, should reference
§ 63.704(c) (3) (i) rather than § 63.704 (e) (3) (i) .
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-7) suggested rewording
the phrase "a 99 percent removal rate" in § 63.704(b)(7)(i) of
the proposed rule, to "at least a 99 percent removal rate."
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-4, IV-D-13) noted a
typographic error in § 63.704(b)(6) of the proposed regulation:
§ 60.704 should be § 63.704.
Response: The final rule is organized differently than the
proposed rule. When the above comments were still applicable,
'they were incorporated. The final rule was also carefully
checked to ensure that the cross-references are correct.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) suggested EPA include
language in the definition of "drying oven" to indicate that
solvent is evaporated in this equipment. As currently worded,
the definition would include cure rooms where no solvent is
evaporated.
Response: This change has been incorporated.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) recommended that relevant
citations be added to the requirements for the initial
performance test for enclosures [§ 63.704(b)(5) in the proposed
rule] to clarify when the use of an enclosure may be used for a
compliance demonstration. The commenter assumed that the use of
an enclosure would be part of a capture efficiency test in cases
where emissions are not routed through hard piping or ductwork to
a control device.
Response: In the final rule, § 63.705(a) states that
initial performance testing must be done to show compliance with
2-73
-------
§ 63.703 unless exempted by § 63.705(a)(1), (2), or (3).
Section 63.705(a)(3) exempts only those capture devices
(e.g., rooms, enclosures, or hoods) that were tested to
demonstrate compliance with Subpart SSS of Part 60, and for which
there are sufficient data to establish an operating parameter
value in accordance with § 63.704(b)(6). All other enclosures
must be tested following the procedures in § 63.705 (c) ;, (d) , (e) ,
and/or (f), as appropriate.
Comment: One comment er (IV-D-9) -.noted that equations 2,3,5,
and 6 in § 63.705(c) of the proposed rule contain errors.
Response; The commenter was not specific. However, the EPA
has reviewed the equations to ensure they are correct;, no errors
were found.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) suggested EPA include
Table 1 from the preamble in § 63.703 of the proposed rule with a
column added to include requirements for each emission point
listed in § 63.701(a)(2) of the proposed rule. The commenter
stated that the table is more straightforward than the text, and
that sources will more easily be able to determine which
requirements are applicable to them. Two commenters (IV-D-1,
IV-D-7) suggested adding a table to § 63.704 of the proposed
rule, which describes compliance and monitoring requirements, to
clarify the requirements for each type of control device. The
commenter suggested the table include the following items: the
parameter to measure for initial compliance test, which
site-specific operating parameters must be determined,
operational requirements, parameters to monitor continuously, and
recordkeeping requirements.
Response: The EPA has added Table 1 to the final rule,
which explains the applicability of the General Provisions to
sources subject to Subpart EE. Tables summarizing the standards
and compliance monitoring for specific capture and control
techniques are not included because of potential discrepancies
between the tables and the regulatory text. Summary tables are
provided in the promulgation preamble.
2-74
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) suggested that EPA change
the definition of capture efficiency so that it is limited to
HAP. According to the commenter, flexibility of measuring total
organics is allowed by the definition; however, MACT only
regulates HAP and the definition of one of the two factors used
to calculate overall HAP removal efficiency (a measure of
compliance) must reflect that only HAP are regulated and still
allow the owner or operator to elect to measure non-HAP as well.
The commenter suggested an alternate definition to reflect that
only HAP are regulated.
Response: The EPA believes that the definition of capture
efficiency that is included in § 63.702 is appropriate; the fact
that it is in terms of pollutants in general and not just HAP
does not change the fact that only HAP compounds need be captured
to comply with this subpart. In § 63.705(c)(2)(ii) and
(c)(3)(ii) it is clearly stated that capture efficiency is
determined by capturing, venting, and measuring all HAP
emissions. Thus, only HAP are regulated. Likewise, paragraph
(c)(4) of the same section discusses capture efficiency of a
total enclosure in terms of HAP emissions only.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) recommended changing the
term "magnetic tape manufacturing operation" to "magnetic tape
coating operation." The commenter believed the term manufacture
could be interpreted too broadly to include the manufacture of
the base substrate to which coatings are applied. The substrate
may be included in other source categories such as "polymers and
other resins" and would not be appropriate to include in this
source category. By listing the emission points associated with
coating operations, it would be made clear that coating as well
as related emission points are included in the applicability of
this rule.
Response: The term magnetic tape manufacturing operation
has not been changed in the final rule. The EPA thinks that the
definition is clear that the emission points to be regulated are
those associated with magnetic tape only. The term magnetic tape
coating operation could suggest that emission points such as
2-75
-------
solvent storage, waste handling, cleaning, etc. are not covered
by this subpart. |
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that in the
compliance and monitoring requirements [§ 63.704(e) of the
proposed rule], the term "solvent recovery device" is too broad.
The commenter suggested that EPA clarify its meaning, as it could
be confused with solvent distillation/purification operations.
If referring to carbon adsorption system or condenser, these
terms should be used instead of "solvent recovery device."
Response; The final rule contains a definition of solvent
recovery device. For the purposes of this rule, a solvent
recovery device is an air pollution control device that collects
rather than destroys HAP solvent in an exhaust stream. The HAP
solvent may be purified and reused on site, or may be shipped
offsite. Examples of such devices are carbon adsorption systems
and condensers. '
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) suggested EPA change
"following manufacturer's specifications" to "following
manufacturer's specifications or other written procedure" in the
demonstration of compliance for an enclosed transfer device
[§ 63.705(g) of the proposed rule], to allow installation and
operation of enclosed transfer devices that have been developed
in-house or modified to suit the needs of the operation.
Response; This comment has been incorporated.
2.14 MISCELLANEOUS
2.14.1 Alternative Compliance Plans
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-4 and IV-F-'l Tacconi,
IV-D-13, IV-D-16, IV-D-ll) made remarks on inclusion in the rule
of provisions for emissions averaging. The first commenter
stated that controlling emissions from solvent storage tanks with
the same primary control device used to control other emissions
at a facility would not be cost effective. The commenter noted
that storage tanks may be located a considerable distance from
the main facility for safety and insurance reasons and
controlling the low level of emissions from storage tanks would
not be cost effective given the amount of ductwork that would be
2-76
-------
required to connect them to the primary control device. The
commenter also stated that compliance with the regulation through
control of storage tanks with a dedicated small carbon canister
would be very difficult and extremely expensive particularly if
installation of a GEM on the carbon canister is necessary. The
commenter believes that allowing emission averaging in the
standard would alleviate these difficulties by not requiring
emission control and CEM on all emission units. The commenter
notes that drawbacks of emissions averaging regarding weighting
factors would not be an issue in this industry, because the
solvent HAP used in the industry all have the same weighting
factor. (The commenter did not specify what kinds of weighting
factors he was referred to.) Also, emissions averaging would
alleviate logistical difficulties associated with implementing
the standard by not requiring CEM's on all sources. The
commenter suggested the following text be added to the regulation
as § 63.701(d)(10) of the proposed rule (affected sources): "As
an alternative, each magnetic tape manufacturing operation may
group any number of affected sources listed in § 63.701(d) to be
considered as a single affected source for the purposes of
emission averaging or compliance with the General Provisions."
The commenter submitted additional comments that addressed the
impacts on emissions averaging and interaction with the General
Provisions.
The commenter also suggested creating a simplified version
of the emissions trading scheme included in the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON) (59 FR 19402). The commenter stated that EPA could
disallow trading between HAP of varying risk factors and require
a slight excess HAP reduction of 10 percent to overcompensate for
any measurement inaccuracies. The EPA could also eliminate any
requirement that a facility conduct any air emission monitoring,
modeling, and risk assessment since no trades between HAP of
different risk factors would be allowed.
The commenter also suggested that EPA eliminate the
restriction that HAP emission reductions above the control device
reference technology control level are not allowed in emission
2-77
-------
trading. The commenter stated that a facility will normally
operate its control device at a level above the compliance limit
to ensure compliance, even though this practice results in higher
operating costs. The commenter maintained that because this
additional control is usually achieved solely for compliance
reasons, it should be allowed to be included in emissions
averaging calculations.
The second commenter (IV-D-13) suggested a prioritization
scheme that evaluates the relative contribution of each
individual source relative to the total emissions from the entire
magnetic tape operation. According to the commenter,
prioritization would allow cost effective control and would
exempt sources that in the aggregate contribute less than or
equal to 5 percent of the total emissions. The commenter
suggested this method should be offered as an alternative to the
de minimis levels they had proposed. According to the commenter,
prioritization would provide flexibility and reduce paperwork
burden associated with compliance demonstrations on sources that
contribute little to the total emissions in the industry. They
suggested including the following language as § 63.703(b)(3) of
the proposed regulation: "In lieu of the requirements:of
§ 63.703(b)(1) and (2), the owner or operator may elect to
identify sources that represent at least 95 percent of:the total
actual annual HAP emissions from the sources subject to this
subpart and achieve an overall HAP removal efficiency of
95 percent from these identified sources. Sources, which in the
aggregate contribute five or less percent of the'total emissions
from the source subject to this subpart are not subject to the
control requirements of this subpart."
The commenter suggested as an alternative a very similar
plan allowing emissions averaging such that some sources may be
over controlled while other sources are undercontrplled to
achieve 95 percent control of emissions from the entire
operation.
The third commenter (IV-D-16) stated that the definition of
affected source is overly restrictive and that a broader
2-78
-------
definition of affected source would provide flexibility and allow
emissions averaging. The coiranenter provided an example of
averaging emissions from an entire mix/coat operation so that
more efficient emissions control achieved from the coating line
(generally greater than 95 percent) can offset less efficient
control of the VOC-dilute mix room exhaust (generally less than
90 percent). The commenter suggested that a group of emission
points collocated and ducted to a common abatement device within
a facility (e.g., all mix room equipment, or coating operations)
be treated as a single affected source. The commenter argued
that under this approach environmental protection will be equal
to if not greater than with the narrower definition of affected
source and domestic producers would not be further disadvantaged
by the burden of regulatory costs.
The fourth commenter (IV-D-11) recommended that EPA not
consider emissions averaging any further. The commenter stated
that emissions averaging most often results in increased
emissions of toxic chemicals that are more difficult to control
and may include HAP. Also, emissions averaging programs have
been difficult to enforce and to administer, with burdensome
compliance and recordkeeping requirements.
Response: The prioritization scheme suggested by one of the
commenters would achieve less control than the main standard
because it would exempt 5 percent of the uncontrolled emissions,
and only require 95 percent control of the nonexempted emissions.
Furthermore, this plan would not account for the fact that the
underlying standard is not 95 percent control for all emission
points. Therefore, it was not considered further by the EPA.
Several of the comments on emissions averaging for magnetic
tape manufacturing appear to be concerns about compliance
demonstrations, rather than a need for emissions averaging. For
example, a commenter suggested that all emission sources vented
to the same control device be allowed to be "averaged" so that
only the common control device has to be monitored (such as the
tanks in the mix room and the coating operations). It is the
EPA's intent that when several sources are vented to a common
2-79
-------
control, the control device itself is monitored; each emission
point does not have to be monitored separately. This point has
been clarified in the final regulation.
This commenter also alluded to the problem for the primary
control device of achieving 95-percent control when the coating
operations are not occurring because the other streams vented to
the device have low flow rates and low concentrations. The EPA
has included in the final rule an alternative standard in which
the owner or operator would determine, during a period when the
control device is properly operated and maintained, a
concentration level for the control device when the coating
operations are not operating.
Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed
regulation would have required continuous emission monitors
(CEM's) on carbon canisters, which might be used to control
storage tanks far from the main control device. The EPA
recognizes that the proposed rule had not adequately considered
monitoring for such situations and is including alternative
monitoring for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers in the final
rule.
One particular problem area that was mentioned in other
comments as well as in those on emissions averaging was the
control of storage tanks. Commenters noted that emissions from
storage tanks are small and may be cost ineffective to control in
i
comparison with other control costs imposed by this rule. This
could be true particularly for those that are sited away from the
main coating operation (hence the primary control device) for
safety or insurance reasons. As discussed in Section 2.6.2 of
this document, based on available information, there is no basis
for subcategorizing among storage tanks based on size or distance
from the control device. However, the EPA agrees that storage
tanks could be cost ineffective to control if far from the main
control device, and that the emissions are small. The estimated
uncontrolled HAP emissions from all the storage tanks at a small
facility total 0.01 ton/yr and at a large facility total 1.2
tons/yr. i
2-80
-------
To meet this concern, the EPA developed an alternative
. compliance option that would allow the owner or operator not to
control certain storage tanks in return for achieving more
control of the largest emissions source at magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities. Under this option, in exchange for
accepting a requirement of 97 percent reduction (instead of
95 percent as required by the basic standard) for all the coating
operations, the owner or operator may leave uncontrolled up to
10 storage tanks with a maximum individual capacity of
20,000 gallons. There are also two additional tiers: to control
all coating operations by 98 percent in lieu of controlling
15 such storage tanks; or 99 percent in lieu of controlling
20 such storage tanks. Available information indicates that this
range of options is adequate to cover the range of plants.
This alternative compliance option might appear at first to
be inconsistent with provisions of the HON (which is the first
MACT standard that provides for emissions averaging) in that the
HON does not permit a plant operator to gain averaging credit for
using reference control technology (the technology assumed in the
development of the standard) at a higher-than-required percentage
reduction. However, there are clear factual differences which
distinguish the two situations. .
Emission limitations under the HON are applicable to
emission points whose characteristics equal or exceed specified
cut-offs, and are premised on the use of reference control
technology. Emissions averaging under the HON responds to
concern that it may be unusually expensive to apply reference
controls to some of the covered emission points (such as emission
points located far from a control device). The HON emissions
averaging provisions allow a plant operator to avoid control of
some covered emission points (a) by applying the reference
control technology to exempt emission points (points whose
characteristics are below the cut-offs) or (b) by applying
controls that are inherently more effective than the reference
control technology to other covered emission points. Except for
reductions achieved by pollution prevention measures, the
2-81
-------
substituted controls must produce at least 110 percent of the
emission reductions that would have been achieved at the emission
points that will no longer be controlled. In addition, the
permitting authority must conclude that risk or hazard is not
increased by the averaging.
As stated above, the HON does not permit the plant operator
to gain averaging credit for using the reference technology at a.
higher-than-required percentage reduction. Credits for operating
a control technology better than its rated control efficiency are
not allowed for two main reasons. One is the fact that in the
development of the standard, the rated efficiency of the
reference technology was set on a lowest-common-denominator
basis. Due to the variable nature of the pollutant streams
encountered among plants subject to the HON (variations from
plant to plant in the mix of pollutants, operating rates, and
other factors), the selection of a single percentage reduction
applicable to each control technology in all circumstances
required a lowest-common-denominator approach, and in many cases
such equipment will achieve substantially higher percentage
reductions under normal design and operating conditions. If
credit were allowed for this differential, a plant, operator might
gain an undeserved windfall due to the manner in which :the rated
control efficiencies were derived.
In the case of magnetic tape manufacturing, the EPA is
considering a much simpler situation than in the HON. Magnetic
tape facilities have generally smaller variability in the plant-
to-plant mix of pollutants, operating rates and other factors.
Rather than including any emission point as in the HON, only two
types of emissions points are eligible for the alternative
compliance plan for magnetic tape operations: the coating
operations and the storage tanks. Because of the simpler nature
of magnetic tape processes and the magnitude of the additional
emissions control, EPA concludes that the emissions from the
uncontrolled storage tanks are adequately offset by additional
control at the coating operations. The required two percent
additional increase in control efficiency at the largest emission
2-82
-------
point at magnetic tape manufacturing plants creates additional
emissions reductions of as much as 0.35 ton/yr at a small
facility and 190 tons/yr at a large facility. Under the
alternative compliance option, some storage tanks may remain
uncontrolled. However, the emissions from these points are very
small in comparison to the additional potential emission benefit
accruing from the coating operations. At small plants,
0.01 ton/yr remain uncontrolled; at larger plants, 1.2 tons. As
in the HON, there is variability in operating conditions and
pollutant streams. Thus, EPA is unable to quantify precisely how
much additional emissions benefit can be attributed to the
required increase in control efficiency. The EPA is confident
that the emissions from the uncontrolled points are adequately
offset by additional reductions.
The other reason the HON does not allow credit for operating
a device greater than its reference control efficiency is a
concern over enforcement problems. The variable mix of
pollutants and operating conditions seen at HON sources means
that the amount by which emission reductions exceed rated levels
is difficult to determine reliably. The data tracking for each
point and device would be extremely complex. Use of a reference
control efficiency for each reference control technology allows
the implementing agency inspectors to check that the equipment is
in place and operating as planned. Then the implementing agency
can check records to examine the calculation of debits and
credits on each of the emission points in order to make a
* ^
compliance determination.
The alternative compliance approach discussed above for
magnetic tape manufacturing would not pose these same enforcement
problems. The required control efficiency for the coating
operations would be the same for all plants taking advantage of
this approach. Continuous monitoring for the purposes of
determining ongoing compliance with the emission standard is
required. For carbon adsorbers, the most common control device
in the industry, GEM's are required. (Note that CEM's are not
required for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers, as discussed
2-83
-------
above. Such adsorbers would not be used on coating operations.)
For incinerators and condensers, the owner or operator would be
required to determine during the initial performance test a
temperature that corresponds to at least 97 percent control
(instead of the 95 percent control of coating operations required
by the basic standard). Therefore, the additional emission
reduction would be ensured.
I
In summary, the EPA believes that it can address the
commenters' main concerns without a general emissions averaging
scheme, such as in the HON. The clarifications and changes in
compliance determinations discussed above and the alternative
compliance option for storage tanks and coating operations are
sufficient. Furthermore, the EPA believes that, under these
circumstances, permitting credit for operating a control device
better than its rated control efficiency for the alternative
compliance option for the magnetic tape industry is
distinguishable from the HON and justifiable.
2.14.2 Other Miscellaneous Issues
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-l, IV-D-7) suggested using
single subscripts instead of double subscripts in § 63,702(b) of
the proposed rule. The commenters stated that the double
subscripts were confusing.
Response; The purpose of using double subscripts in
§ 63.702(b) is to conform with the nomenclature used in the
NSPS for magnetic tape coating facilities (40 CFR 60, '
Subpart SSS). The Agency believes that using the same
nomenclature in the NESHAP as is used in the NSPS will reduce
confusion because the majority of owners and operators of sources
affected by this rule are already familiar with the NSPS for
magnetic tape coating facilities. i
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-5) suggested that tlie rule be
promulgated by November 15, 1994, stating that promulgation of
the standard on schedule is important for the States, which must
implement and enforce the standards.
Response: The final rule will be promulgated by |
November 23, 1994 in accordance with a consent decree reached
2-84
-------
between the Sierra Club and EPA (Sierra Club vs. Browner, Case
No. 93-1024 [and related cases][DC District Court]).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-9) stated that EPA should
include incentives for pollution prevention activities that occur
after the effective date of the rule. The commenter suggested
incentives such as reduced recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for voluntary reductions, which has been done in
other standards and programs.
Response: An incentive for pollution prevention activities
has been incorporated in the standard. The term utilize has been
revised to consider net usage to further encourage pollution
prevention measures, and a provision has been added to allow an ,
equivalent low-HAP coating limit to encourage the development of
low-HAP coatings.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) stated that omitting the
regulatory text from the Federal Register notice is not good
policy. The commenter reasoned that interested persons should
have easy access to the regulatory text; requesting a copy from
EPA through the mail takes time out of the comment period, and
downloading from the Technology Transfer -Network (TTN) requires
computer equipment and expertise and ties up a computer for a
long time. The process of downloading the regulation from TTN
could be difficult, especially for small facilities affected by
the rule. Also, the document from TTN must be edited before
printing to condense it. The commenter suggested that the
preamble should be omitted from the Federal Register notice, if
necessary, not the regulation. Finally, the commenter suggested
that it be made clear in the preamble that the regulatory text is
not included in the Federal Register notice by using highlighted
text. -
Response; The Agency has reviewed its responsibility to
adequately inform the affected public of proposed actions. The
decision to reduce the amount of printed material in the Federal
Register and assure that the material, including the proposed
regulatory text of the proposed rule, is accessible for public
comment and judicial review does not conflict with the statutory
2-85
-------
requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the
Federal Register Act (FRA), nor the requirements of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. Access to material that is used as the
basis of the proposed rule (officially 1'ocated in the Air and
Radiation Docket) is identified in the preamble to the proposals
and promulgations of rules. Specifically, the Agency clearly
established and will continue to look for additional connections
along with directions to obtain the text of information not
printed in the Federal Register through the Technology Transfer
Network's bulletin board for recently signed rules, directly from
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, through
distribution to trade associations, through plaintiffs, in court
ordered regulatory actions, through contact with small! business
ombudsman systems in each State, and if necessary through the
contact person at the Agency. The response has been positive as
the process has aged.
The Agency believes that all information that is developed
in the course of the development of a proposed and final rule is
important, however, the need to publish information in the
Federal Register must be addressed realistically and responsibly.
The Agency will continue to review its extensive publishing in
the Federal Register with its responsibility to adequabely inform
affected parties of our proposed and final actions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-12) stated that the; draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) does not address issues of
employee safety, exposure, and health. The commenter noted that
several HAP listed in the EIS have occupational health1 criteria
which have to be met by companies under the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSHA) limits for air contaminants. Also, methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and xylene
exposures are associated with central nervous systems symptoms
and irritation. Toluene diisocyanate exposure has been connected
i
with sensitization effects, occupational asthma, and it is
considered a potential human carcinogen. Cobalt exposure has
been associated with pulmonary fibrosis and dermatitis; exposure
2-86
-------
to hexavalent chromium has been connected with human respiratory
cancers.
The commenter also noted that some of the processes and
procedures listed in Chapter 3 of the proposal BID could increase
employee exposures with no mention of measures to reduce
exposures or personal protective equipment. These processes
include pouring solvent by hand, cleaning pieces by hand, and
spraying open-top tanks with solvents to clean them.
In addition, the commenter noted that Chapter 4 of the
proposal BID has no reference to employee safety or exposures
when performing routine maintenance on emission control devices.
For example, the commenter noted that carbon adsorption systems
are known to be susceptible to fire.
The commenter also stated that Chapter 4 of the BID does not
mention worker safety considerations with respect to plant
operations. For example, the BID does not mention if an employee
works inside or outside a total enclosure, which would greatly
affect his/her exposure to HAP. Also, drying oven emissions can
escape into room air and reach the worker. Additionally,
Chapter 4 refers to the ventilation rates for the control of
worker exposures on the coating line as well as exhaust hoods
over wash sinks, but downplays their importance since these
controls are not very effective in controlling HAP to the
necessary levels for air pollution control. Chapter 4 also
suggests the substitution of non-HAP solvents for the ones
currently in use, but there is no mention of the toxicity of the
substituted solvents in terms of employee exposures. Finally,
Chapter 6 discusses model lines for HAP without mentioning
employee exposure or controls necessary to protect workers.
Response: The Agency recognizes that there may be
significant health risks associated with worker exposure to the
HAP that are regulated under this rule. However, because OSHA
has jurisdiction over regulating the work environment, the
Agency's policy has been to address only the health effects and
risk associated with pollutant emissions to the ambient air. The
EPA does not believe that any of the MACT requirements would
2-87
-------
increase worker exposure to HAP, but would decrease their
exposure. For example, all mix tanks are required to 'be covered
and vented to control, and HAP particulate transfer operations
are also regulated. :
2.15 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
The following comments were received upon proposal of the
Enhanced Monitoring Regulations, proposed for inclusion in 40 CFR
Part 64, (58 FR 54648, October 22, 1993), for Performance
Specifications 101 and 102 (PS 101 and PS 102). The PS 101 and
PS 102 will be promulgated as Performance Specification 8 and 9
(PS 8 and PS 9) respectively, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B.
Comments addressed to the docket (Docket No. A-91-52) for PS 101
and PS 102 will hereafter be addressed as PS 8 and PS 9, for the
sake of clarity. The list of commenters for PS 8 is provided in
Table 2-2. The list of commenters for PS 9 is provided in
Table 2-3. !
2.15.1 Performance Specification 8
Comment; A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended adding a
reporting requirement to Performance Specification 101.
Performance Specification 102 in Part 64 and the performance
specifications in Appendix B of Part 60 all require reporting.
Another State agency (IV-D-438) recommended requiring initial and
annual relative accuracy test audits for VOC CEMS in addition to
calibration error, response time, and performance audit tests.
Although performing relative accuracy test audits would involve
comparison against a similar instrument, that is true of most
relative accuracy test audits for CEMS where instrumental test
methods are now the most commonly used. i
Another commenter (IV-D-339) recommended withdrawing
Performance Specification 101 to allow additional comments. The
methods in Performance Specification 101 are new and have been
proposed for the first time. The short comment period did not
allow detailed analysis of the proposed methods. \
Response: Performance specification 8 has been revised to
i
be consistent with other performance specifications in ^Appendix B
to Part 60. The definitions, installation and measurement
2-88 i
-------
LIST OF ALL PS 101 COMMENTERS
I
Comment er . .
Air Compliance Total Services (ACTS)
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
Amoco Corporation
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Center for Process Analytical Chemistry
Dow Chemical Company . :
Exxon Chemical Americas
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, The
Koch Industries, Inc.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Ohio EPA
Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Texas Chemical Council
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
--- ' ' - -
Comment No.
(IV-D-19)
(IV-D-538)
(IV-D-244)
(IV-D-402)
(IV-D-318)
(IV-D-260)
(IV-D-339)
(IV-D-292)
(IV-D-332)
(IV-D-438)
(IV-D-283)
(IV-D-236)
(IV-D-524)
(IV-D-365)
(IV-D-371)
TABLE 2-3. LIST OF ALL PS 102 COMMENTERS
Comment er .
Amoco Corporation
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Center for Process Analytical Chemistry
Dow Chemical Company
Eli Lilly and Company
Exxon Chemical Americas
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, The
Koch Industries, Inc.
Monsanto Company .
Ohio EPA
R J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Texas Chemical Council
Comment No.
(IV-D-244)
(IV-D-402)
(IV-D-318)
(IV-D-260)
(IV-D-349)
(IV-D-339)
(IV-D-292)
(IV-D-332)
(IV-D-273)
(IV-D-283)
(IV-D-258)
(IV-D-524)
(IV-D-365)
2-89
-------
location specifications, test procedures, data reduction
procedures, and reporting requirements are all now the same as
those in PS 2, and will be familiar to those persons who have
applied the existing performance specifications.
Comment; A commenter (IV-D-365) recommended amending
Section 1.1.2 to allow using a "mass standard" of the solvent as
the CEM calibration gas to quantify VOC emissions.
Response: Nothing in PS 8 precludes the use of mass
standards to calibrate the CEM. If volume mass standards are
appropriate for the particular application of PS 8, then they
should be used. '
Comment: Two commenters proposed revisions to Section 3.2,
which discusses the stratification test procedure. One commenter
(IV-D-538) recommended specifying that alternate stratification
test methods achieving the same purpose may be allowed, such as a
piccolo probe that permits sampling of emissions at several
points simultaneously. Another commenter (IV-D-339) recommended
exempting combustion stacks and 8-inch and smaller pipe from the
stratification test and making the sample point placement an item
to be specified by the source owner or operator in the enhanced
monitoring protocol, because VOC stratification tests are
unnecessary in well-mixed combustion stacks and the tests cannot
be performed in small diameter pipe. The commenter also stated
that the extra cost of placing CEMS high on stacks is unnecessary
and unjustified. i
One State agency (IV-D-283) noted an inconsistency between
Section 3.2 of Performance Specification 101 and Section 3.2 of
Appendix B of Part 64 regarding whether a stratification test is
required for locating a VOC CEMS. The commenter recommended
clarifying whether a stratification test is required and pointed
out that if the test is performed, the rule does not require
sources to report the stratification test procedure or "the test
results. However, this commenter questioned why a normal flow
stratification test would not be acceptable for determining the
location of a VOC CEMS.
2-90
-------
Response: The measurement location specifications have been
revised to be the same as PS 2. A stratification test is not
required; if statification exists it is a problem that will
require correction if the relative accuracy requirement cannot be
met.
Comment; A commenter (IV-D-260) objected to the requirement
in Section 4.1 that sources determine at least 90 percent of the
organic components in their process vent streams. The commenter
provided proposed text requiring sources to determine all of the
organic components in the effluent stream that can reasonably be
identified using Method 18, process chemistry, or previous
studies. Another commenter (IV-D-244) requested clarification of
whether Section 4.1 requires the analyst to determine which
components constitute 90 percent of the VOC mass of the stream or
requires the analyst to identify 90 percent of the number of VOC
components present.
Response: This requirement has been removed, and the
objective is now accomplished by the inclusion of a relative
accuracy criteria, which is consistent with the other performance
specifications in Appendix B.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-339; IV-D-365; IV-D-538)
objected to the requirement in Section 4.2 that sampling systems
maintain a temperature above 150 degrees Celsius. These
commenters stated that 150 degrees is hotter than necessary,
would require significant maintenance, and would cause mechanical
problems. One commenter (IV-D-538) recommended allowing the use
of commercially available heated sampling system' alternatives
with a range of 110 to 120 degrees Celsius. The commenter stated
that a temperature of 120 degrees would prevent condensation in
sample lines and would require less maintenance. This commenter
recommended establishing temperature requirements for sample
gases on a case-by-case basis according to the condensation point
of the constituents at ambient conditions. Another commenter
(IV-D-365) proposed a minimum temperature of 110 degrees Celsius.
Another commenter (IV-D-339) proposed requiring sources to
maintain the sample above its dew point and recommended limiting
2-91
-------
the applicability of Section 4.2 to samples that operate above
their dew point or to combustion stacks. This commenter stated
that heated sampling systems are only appropriate for hot
samples, such as combustion stacks.
Response; As noted above, a sampling system heating system
is no longer described in the method. The necessity for one and
how it is operated is determined in effect by the CEM'ls ability
to achieve the relative accuracy specification.
Comment; Commenters (IV-D-19; IV-D-283) also requested that
the final rule clarify what is required to show the effectiveness
of unheated VOC sampling systems as required in Section 4.2.
One of these commenters (IV-D-19) provided proposed teixt
revisions that would tie the showing of effectiveness to specific
relative accuracy test results.
Response: A sampling system heating system is no longer
described in the method. The necessity for one and hojv it is
operated is determined in effect by the CEM's ability £o achieve
the relative accuracy specification.
Comment: A commenter (IV-D-538) recommended specifying in
Section 4.3 that a GEMS instrument span must be between 1.5 and
2 times the level of the emission limit or be a span covering the
expected emission limit range. For low emission limits, it is
not practical to limit instrument spans to two times the level of
the emission limit. One State agency (IV-D-283) recommended
clarifying "average potential emission" in Section 4.3, noting
that the term raises questions about whether the indicated span
value would be adequate.
Response; As noted above, in revising PS 8 to make it
consistent with PS 2, the provision of PS 2 is now included that
says the high level calibration value must be within l.'s times
the pollutant concentration value corresponding to the emission
standard level and the span value. The span value is defined as
"The upper limit of a gas concentration measurement range
specified for affected source categories in the applicable
subpart of the gegulations". "Average potential emission level"
refers to the establishment of the high level value only for the
2-92
-------
measurement of uncontrolled emissions in the absence of a
specified span value. The looser specification for this high
level value is indicative of the difficulty of making a precise
determination of this value.
Comment: Certain commenters recommended modifying
Part 4.4.1 to allow gases other than high-purity air to
constitute "zero gas." One commenter (IV-D-19) provided proposed
text revisions adding other gases with low concentrations to the
definition of "zero gas." Another commenter (IV-D-339)
recommended adding inert gas as an alternative to high-purity
air. This commenter stated that zero gas should specify maximum
hydrocarbon content but should not be limited to air.
A State agency (IV-D-283) also recommended specifying in
Section 4.4.2 whether EPA protocol gases are required for
calibration purposes.
A few commenters recommended revising Section 4.4.2.1 to
account for situations where it would be impossible to use VOC
components in the same proportion that comprises 90 percent of
the VOC in the effluent stream. One commenter (IV-D-538)
proposed allowing sources to use validated commercial standards
as an alternative. This commenter noted that for applications
with three or more components, it would be impossible to make up
a properly proportioned standard. Another commenter (IV-D-365) .
recommended requiring VOC components in the same proportion
"whenever possible." Finally, two commenters (IV-D-318;
IV-D-339) stated that requiring a calibration gas representing
90 percent of the VOC in a process stream, which" may contain
several hundred components, would be infeasible, and one of these
commenters recommended deleting Section 4.4.2.1.
Response; In revising PS 8 to be consistent with PS 2,
these specifications concerning the calibration gases have been
removed. The relative accuracy specification will determine the
adequacy of the calibration gases.
Comment: A few commenters addressed the issue of. gases used
in CEMS audits. Some commenters (IV-D-236; IV-D-538) recommended
amending Section 4.5 to allow EPA protocol gases to be used in
2-93
-------
audits of VOC CEMS instead of requiring sources to use certified
EPA audit gases. One of these commenters (IV-D-236) pointed out
that EPA has a limited inventory of audit materials, and using
protocol gases would make a wider range of gases available for
audits. Another commenter (IV-D-260) recommended amending
Section 4.5 to allow any accurate audit gas to be used,
regardless of its source, for CEMS calibration.
Response: In revising PS 8 to be consistent with PS 2,
these specifications concerning the calibration gases have been
removed. The relative accuracy specification will determine the
adequacy of the calibration gases.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-260) proposed changing the
0.5 percent resolution requirement for instrument span in
Section 4.6 to a resolution requirement of 1.0 percent.. The
commenter observed that many instruments having a resolution of
1.0 percent of span are in use today and generate acceptable
results. Purchasing new instruments to meet a 0.5 percent
specification would be costly and unnecessary.
Response: In revising PS 8 to be consistent with PS-2, the
resolution requirement has been removed, as the other
specifications will be sufficient to insure that adequate
measurement resolution is achieved. i
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-318; IV-D-339) noted an
inconsistency between Section 4.7, which allows for a two-minute
response time, and Section 4.10, which sets the analysis update
time at 1 minute. One commenter (IV-D-339) recommended changing
the analysis update time in Section 4.10 to 2 minutes.
.Response; A minimum response time is no longer specified in
PS 2, as it is not consistent with the other PS's in Appendix B.
Knowledge of the response time is required, however, to properly
correlate the reference method and CEMS data in the course of the
determination of relative accuracy.
Comment: Certain commenters (IV-D-260; IV-D-292; IV-D-318)
recommended that the Performance Specifications require sources
to determine calibration error at two concentrations (e.g., high
and low) instead of at three as required by Section 4.8. One
2-94
-------
commenter (IV-D-260) proposed substituting the.procedure
described in Section 4.1 of Appendix C and making conforming
changes in Section 6.1.1 of PS 101 as well as Section 4.8.
Another of these commenters (IV-D-292) pointed out that two
levels of concentration is consistent with accepted good
laboratory practices. Finally, one of the commenters (IV-D-318)
requested that the EPA Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support
Group address this issue.
One State agency (IV-D-283) pointed out inconsistencies
between Section 4.8 and other sections. Requiring CEMS to be
capable of performing a daily calibration error determination at
all three levels conflicts with the requirements of Section 2.3
of Appendix B and Section 2.1.2 of Appendix D. Also, allowing a
5.0 percent difference between the CEMS response and calibration
gas values is less stringent than the performance specifications
in Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60.
A local agency (IV-D-524) noted inconsistencies with 40 CFR
Part 75. The allowable calibration error should be 2 percent
instead of 5 percent, and the sample reading time should be
15 minutes instead of 1 minute.
Finally, an industry commenter (IV-D-244) requested
explanation of the basis for the +/-5 percent figure in
Section 4.8 and asked whether the +/-5 percent figure applies to
the average of the CEMS at the three calibration levels or
applies to each GEM individually.
Response: In the revision of PS 8 to be consistent with
PS-2, calibration error is no longer specified. ' Calibration
drift is, however, and it must be determined at two concentration
levels.
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended changing the
relative error in Section 4.9 from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Because performance audits use a comparison to calibration gases,
which are required to be very accurate, a 5 percent relative
error would be achievable. Another commenter (IV-D-332)
recommended modifying the relative error specification in
Section 4.9 to cross-reference relative accuracy specifications
2-95
-------
in Appendices B and F of 40 CFR Part 60, because the
specification in Section 4.10 is inconsistent with generally
accepted practices. Another commenter (IV-D-402) proposed
relaxing the relative error specification from 10 percent to
20 percent for emission standards with low concentrations that
are lower than applicable Federal standards. The commenter, a
State air quality agency, provided detailed examples of standards
that it imposed that are far below federal requirements and for
which 10 percent relative error would be too stringent.
Response: Calibration drift is readily determined with
stable calibration gases, and the revision of PS 8 to be
consistent with PS 2 means that the specification that the drift
not exceed 2.5 percent of the span value.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-371) recommended allowing GEMS
to measure at whatever frequency is specified in the appropriate
regulation or permit as required under Section 4.9 of Performance
Specification 102, instead of requiring measurement frequency to
be set at 1 minute as required in Section 4.10. ;
I
Response: This comment is consistent with the removal of
this specification that ocurred with the revisions previously
mentioned. [
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended amending
Section 5.1 to require a conditioning period for establishing
electronic stability before conducting certification tests.
I
Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B,
contains a similar requirement. Another commenter (IV-D-260)
recommended deleting the requirement in Sections'5.3 and 5.4 that
sources conduct response time tests and performance audits each
quarter. This commenter argued that requiring quarterly response
time tests would conflict with Section 1.1.1, which states that
the procedures evaluate GEMS performance at the time of
installation. The commenter continued by stating that if testing
beyond initial testing is required, annual testing would suffice
and is the norm in other specifications.
i
Response: The rationales for these comments are consistent
with the previously mentioned revisions.
2-96
-------
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended clarifying
Section 6.1.1 to improve the differentiation between the daily
two-point calibration tests and the three-point calibration error
test conducted during the seven-day calibration error test
period. The commenter recommended calling the three-point test a
"linearity test," which would be similar to language used in
40 CFR Part 75.
The same agency noted that the method of calculation
specified in Section 6.1.2 does not agree with the performance
specification criteria in Section 4.8. The commenter recommended
differentiating the methods of calculation for the daily two-
level calibration error test and the three-level calibration
error test. Finally, the agency recommended specifying in
Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 how many times audit gases are to be
introduced into the sampling system and when audit readings
should be taken.
Response: As described in previous responses, the
calibration error determination has been replaced by the
calibration drift determination, which is made at two
concentration values, not three.
2.15.2 Performance Specification 9
Comment: A commenter (IV-D-339) recommended withdrawing
Performance Specification 102 to allow additional comments. The
methods in Performance Specification 102 are new and have been
proposed for the first time. The short comment period did not
allow detailed analysis of the proposed methods. Another
commenter (IV-D-273) requested clarification of "the applicability
of Performance Specification 102, stating that gas
chromatographic CEM's should only be used for volatile compounds
and not for semivolatile compounds. Also, gas chromatographic
CEM's should not be used in saturated gas streams or in gas
streams where aerosols may be present.
Some commenters (IV-D-244; IV-D-258; IV-D-260; IV-D-318)
recommended deleting the statement in Section 1.1 that gas
chromatographic CEM's may not be suitable for applications where
more than five VOC components are to be monitored. Two of these
2-97
-------
commenters (IV-D-260; IV-D-318) stated that gas chromatography is
developing so that more than five components will be able to be
monitored. One commenter (IV-D-318) requested that the EPA
Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support Group address the
issue of the number of VOC components that a gas chromatographic
GEM can monitor. Finally, one of these commenters (IV-D-258)
stated that the number of VOC components is best determined by
the calibration precision and linearity performance audit and
other tests provided in Performance Specification 102 and
included an example gas chromatogram including nine VOC
components, each having an accuracy and precision greater than
98 percent.
Response: The EPA believes that an adequate comment period
has been provided. The PS 9 was originally proposed as PS 102 on
October 22, 1993, for inclusion in 40 CFR Part 64. The original
comment period was December 30, 1993. Upon request from the
public, the comment period was then extended to January 31, 1994.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that PS 9 should not
limit the number of compounds monitored by the source. The
quality assurance procedures in PS 9 allow the source to
demonstrate precision and accuracy for the system and phus will
pinpoint any problems with the resolution and integration of
analyte peaks. That statement has been removed from the PS 9.
Comment; Many commenters (IV-D-244; IV-D-258; IV-D-260;
IV-D-318; IV-D-349; IV-D-365) opposed the requirement in
Section 2.1 that gas chromatographs be temperature programmable.
One commenter (IV-D-258) noted that temperature programmability
is not necessary in every instance, and that Section 5.1
indicates that temperature programmability is only one | of several
ways to obtain adequate peak resolution while preparing for
testing. Also, if the measurement meets the standards of
precision and accuracy in Appendix A, temperature programmability
should not be mandated. This commenter also stated that the
requirement will restrict technological innovation. Another
commenter (IV-D-260) stated that achieving other data quality
objectives is sufficient. Two commenters (IV-D-260; IV-D-349)
2-98
-------
discussed the cost differences between temperature programmable
and nontemperature programmable gas chromatographs. Finally, one
commenter (IV-D-318) requested that the EPA Technology Transfer
and Regulatory Support Group address this issue.
One commenter (IV-D-260) proposed changing the definition of
"calibration precision" in Section 2.2 to the error between
triplicate injections of each calibration standard, instead of
the agreement between triplicate injections of each calibration
standard. A commenter (IV-D-258) also recommended amending
Section 2.1.1 to allow more than one chromatographic column per
system, depending on the performance characteristics required for
analysis of the VOC mixture.
Response: The EPA agrees with these commenters that
temperature programmable GC's are not always necessary; that
requirement has been removed from PS 9. The commenters should
note that temperature programmability will decrease sample
elution time, which might be necessary to meet the sampling
frequency requirement of the applicable rule.
The EPA agrees that calibration precision is better defined
as the error between triplicate injections instead of the
agreement between triplicate injections; the definition has been
changed.
The EPA considers dual column/dual detector systems as two .
separate instruments, and thus the source will be required to
conduct performance specification tests for each sampling and
analytical system. This clarification has been added to PS 9.
Comment: A commenter (IV-D-339) recommended exempting from
the stratification test method in Section 3.2 combustion stacks
and 8-inch and smaller pipe, and making the sample point
placement an item to be specified by the source owner or
operator in the enhanced monitoring protocol. The commenter also
stated that placing CEM's high on stacks adds unnecessary costs.
Response: The EPA has revised the instrument installation
procedure to provide the source a great degree of discretion in
locating a representative sampling site.
2-99
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-260) proposed language to
amend Section 4.1 to require source owners or operators to
identify a reasonable percentage, instead of 98 percent, of the
organic components by mass in the effluent stream, and proposed
specifying that sources may use Method 18, process chemistry, or
previous studies as a guide. Another commenter (IV-D-365)
recommended use of 90 percent instead of 98 percent. ;0ne
commenter (IV-D-244) requested clarification of whether
Section 4.1 requires the analyst to determine which components
constitute 98 percent of the mass of the stream or 98 percent of
the VOC components in the stream.
A commenter (IV-D-258) also recommended amending Section 4.1
to allow more than one chromatographic column, therefore allowing
more than one injector. A commenter (IV-D-365) also recommended
modifying Section 4.1 to allow more flexibility in the required
components of a gas chromatographic system by adding "if
necessary11 before the list of components.
A commenter (IV-D-258) proposed changing the term "injection
loop" and "loop" in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 to the more general and
inclusive term "introduction system." Finally, a commenter
(IV-D-260) proposed deleting "temperature programmable" from
Section 4.1.
Response: The language in Section 4.1 has been modified
such that the pollutants to be monitored will be determined by
the applicable regulation or permit.
The EPA considers dual column/dual detector systems as two
separate instruments, and thus the source will be required to
conduct performance specification tests for each sampling and
analytical system. This clarification has been added to PS 9.
The injection loop system is widely used for the introduction of
gaseous samples to the GC; however, the language has been
expanded to allow alternative sampling systems, as long as the
performance requirements of the system are met. |
Comment: A commenter (IV-D-258) recommended changing
"chromatograph" in Section 4.2 to "chromatographic oven" because
the current language indicates that the intent is to heat the
2-100
-------
entire chromatograph, while the actual intent is to heat only the
injection system and the chromatographic oven. A State agency
(IV-D-283) also requested clarification of what constitutes a
sufficient showing of effectiveness for an unheated sampling
system, as discussed in Section 4.2. A commenter (IV-D-365)
recommended amending Section 4.2 to require the sample loop and
chromatograph to be heated "if necessary."
A few commenters (IV-D-273; IV-D-339; IV-D-365) recommended
modifying the temperature requirement in Section 4.2. One of
these commenters (IV-D-339) recommended changing the minimum
temperature of 150 degrees Celsius to a requirement to maintain
the sample above its dew point. Requiring a minimum temperature
of 150° is unnecessary to prevent condensation'and may cause
fouling and sampling problems. This commenter also recommended
limiting the applicability of Section 4.2 to samples that operate
above their dew point or to combustion stacks. The commenter
stated that heated sampling systems are appropriate only for hot
samples, such as combustion stacks. Another of these commenters
(IV-D-273) recommended modifying Section 4.2 to match the
requirements of Method 18, which specifies a heated line,
temperature of 3 degrees above stack temperature or the
temperature necessary to prevent condensation. Finally, the
third commenter (IV-D-365) proposed a minimum temperature of 110°
Celsius.
One commenter (IV-D-349) also noted that prescribing
specific performance specifications inappropriately limits a
source's options in selecting an enhanced monitoring instrument.
As an example, the commenter discussed in detail the
impracticability of requiring a sample train to be maintained at
150° as required in Section 4.2.
Response; The wording in Section 4.2 has been clarified.
The EPA strongly believes that the heat-tracing of system
components is necessary in all cases, to insure no sample loss
throughout the sampling system. However, the EPA agrees with the
commenter's concerns about the 150°C temperature requirement.
The EPA believes 120°C, with no cold spots in the system, is
2-101
-------
adequate to prevent moisture condensation in the sampling system.
As discussed earlier, this performance specification will be
promulgated with this action to 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, not
the enhanced monitoring provisions which the commenter is
addressing.
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) pointed out that
Section 4.3 refers to a Section 4.3 of Appendix B, Part 64, and
stated that this section does not exist. The commenter also
recommended specifying in Section 4.3 whether EPA protocol gases
are required for calibration purposes. Another commenter
(IV-D-339) recommended reducing the three-point calibration
requirement in Section 4.3 to a one-point calibration, because
the three-point requirement reduces on-line time of flame
ionization detector (FID) gas chromatographic systems, since the
detector is linear over six orders of magnitude.
Response: The EPA has replaced referrals to other documents
in PS 9 and believes these changes will make the document easier
to use. The calibration gas requirements in PS 9 have been
clarified; cylinder gases certified for 2 percent accuracy are
required, a gas dilution system allowance has been added for
added flexibility to the source. The EPA strongly believes in
the use of multipoint calibrations, particularly for GC systems.
Although GC/FID systems provide good linearity over a wide range
of concentrations, multipoint calibrations are needed to insure
accurate data and to correct for detector noise and drift.
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) proposed amending
Section 4.4 to include as audit gases each organic anaiyte as
described in Section 4.3, and to determine calibration error in
Section 4.6 at all three levels for each organic anaiyte.
Response: The EPA has added the option of using a Protocol
1 gas mixture containing the compounds of interest if EPA audit
materials are not available.
Comment: Certain commenters (IV-D-260; IV-D-292; IV-D-318)
recommended requiring sampling at two concentrations to determine
the 7-day calibration error, instead of requiring sampling at
three concentrations as required in Section 4.6. One commenter
2-102
-------
(IV-D-260) proposed substituting the procedure discussed in
Section 4.1 of Appendix C, and making conforming changes to
Section 6.1.1 of PS 102 as well as Section 4.6. Another
commenter (IV-D-292) pointed out that two measurements are in
accord with accepted laboratory practices. A commenter
(IV-D-318) also requested that the EPA Technology Transfer and
Regulatory Support Group address the issue of the number of
samplings required.
A commenter (IV-D-260) also proposed amending Section 4.6 to
allow owners and operators to set calibration error by agreement
with permitting authorities, instead of setting the maximum
calibration error at 5 percent. A local agency (IV-D-524) noted
inconsistencies with 40 CFR Part 75. The allowable calibration
error should be 2 percent instead of 5 percent, and the sample
reading time should be 15 minutes instead of 1 minute.
Response: The EPA believes that a three-point test of
instrument drift is essential in order to document instrument
performance over a continuous period of time. The calibration
error requirement has been expanded in PS 9 to 10 percent instead
of the original 5 percent. The EPA believes this expanded
requirement will allow the source greater latitude in terms of
the number of compounds which can be monitored with a GC system.
The differences in requirements as to sampling frequency and
calibration error are dependant on the regulation and the number
and types of pollutants required for monitoring.
Comment: A commenter (IV-D-260) recommended amending
Section 4.7 to allow the possibility of using calibration
techniques other than linear regression analysis. The commenter
provided proposed language that would require the calibration
model for each organic compound to have a goodness of fit value
instead of requiring a specific linear regression curve. A
commenter (IV-D-244) requested clarification of the basis for
selecting a 5 percent maximum deviation in Section 4.7. The
commenter asked whether a correlation r2 greater than or equal to
0.995 is necessary, noting that this correlation would be very
difficult to meet.
2-103
-------
Response: The linear regression analysis is widely used and
accepted as a technique to demonstrate linearity of instrument
response over a range of concentrations. The linearity of the
instrument is important to insure data accuracy. The ;EPA
believes that the 5 percent deviation allowance per triplicate
injection and the correlation requirement is reasonable and
attainable; Test Method 18, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, which is
a GC procedure, has the same 5 percent allowance for multiple
calibration gas injections.
Comment; A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended changing the
relative error in Section 4.8 from 10 percent to 5 percent,
because the performance audit uses a comparison to calibration
gases, which are required to be very accurate. Another commenter
(IV-D-332) recommended modifying the relative error specification
in Section 4.8 to cross reference the relative accuracy
specifications in Appendices B and F of 40 CFR Part 60, while a
local agency (IV-D-402) proposed relaxing the relative | error
specification from 10 percent to 20 percent for emission
standards with low concentrations that are lower than applicable
federal standards. The local agency provided detailed examples
of standards that it imposed that are far below federal
requirements and for which 10 percent relative error would be too
stringent.
Response; The EPA believes the 10 percent performance audit
deviation allowance is reasonable, considering the wid^ range of
pollutants potentially monitored with PS 9. Performance audit
samples are essential to the verification of the" accuracy of the
instrument. :
Comment; A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended delineating
specific response time criteria in Section 5.1. An industry
commenter (IV-D-365) provided proposed text modifying Section 5.1
to allow the use of different chromatographic columns run in
parallel to eliminate potential resolution interferences.
Response: An equation and a requirement for the sampling
system time constant has been added to Section 4.9.
2-104
-------
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended calling the
three-point calibration error test in Section 6.1.1 a linearity
test, similar to language in 40 CFR Part 75, to differentiate
between the three-point test and daily two-point calibration
error tests. The agency also noted that the method of
calculation in Section 6.1.2 does not agree with the performance
specification criteria in Section 4.6. Finally, the agency
recommended clarifying the testing strategy in Section 6.2 to
specify how many times audit gases are to be introduced into the
sampling system at the sampling probe, and to specify when audit
readings should be taken.
Response: The EPA believes there is some confusion on the
difference between the 7-day initial test and the daily
calibration criteria. These sections have been rewritten in
order to clarify the requirements. The requirements for carrying
out the performance audit test have been clarified; the audit gas
shall be sampled three times and the average instrument response
shall be reported.
Comment: A State agency (IV-D-283) noted that Section 7
does not include all equations used for tests required by
Performance Specification 102.
Response: The EPA has added equations to this section in
order to make the procedure easier to use.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-260, IV-D-365) recommended
ways to reduce the reporting requirements of Performance
Specification 102. One commenter (IV-D-260) provided proposed
language to amend Section 8 that would specify ttiat data sheets,
calculations, CEM data records, and cylinder gas or reference
material certifications shall be made available to the permitting
authority upon request, instead of requiring sources to submit
these records. Another commenter (IV-D-365) recommended
substituting "applicable" for "all" in Section 8, to acknowledge
that not all of the requirements apply to each source.
A State agency (IV-D-283) recommended increasing the level
of detail of the reporting requirements. The agency stated that
Section 8 should provide for reporting the results of calibration
2-105
-------
precision and performance audit tests. The agency also
recommended requiring the submission of a signed document stating
that all testing procedures were completed according to the
requirements of Performance Specification 102.
Response; The EPA believes the reporting requirements for
this performance specification are reasonable. The language in
this section has been altered for clarity. The reporting
requirements will rely on the applicable regulation or permit.
2-106
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-94-074b
IT
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations-Background Information for
Promulgated Standards ^
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division (Mail Drop 13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANTNO.
68-D1-0115
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A final rule for the regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing
Tbeingpromufgated under the authority of Sections 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean A!T
nded I 1990. This document presents the response to public comments received on the
proposed rule and changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. _
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
17.
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
National Emission Standards
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
115
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
------- |